|
Micro Center's shipping them at the moment, they're not just in-store only. That being said, one knock against the Inland drive is that it only has a three year warranty vs. five for a lot of other drives of similar performance.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
HP was being a dick about support on the EX920, too. Dunno if it's still the case with the 950.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
ChiralCondensate posted:HP was being a dick about support on the EX920, too. Dunno if it's still the case with the 950. Yeah the thing you have to know about those is you go to a different company for support if you buy them retail. Because they aren't actually made by HP, they're made by a company that did a deal with HP to sell then with HP's brand. But people who threw away the warranty paper don't know that. (But if they come with your HP PC then actual HP does do the replacement, same as with any other individual bits on an OEM pc. But that further muddies the water for google searches. AFAIK once you go to the right place for support it's fine.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
What's the current hotness for a dedicated Linux boot drive? Only need 128-256GB, already have a WD black as the windows boot and a 1TB sabrent (?) Rocket as the dedicated games drive. Would like to keep it nvme just to be completely sata free. Thinking WD blue, but is there something meaningfully better?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:What's the current hotness for a dedicated Linux boot drive? Only need 128-256GB, already have a WD black as the windows boot and a 1TB sabrent (?) Rocket as the dedicated games drive. Would like to keep it nvme just to be completely sata free. Thinking WD blue, but is there something meaningfully better? WB Blue is a sata drive in the M.2 form factor. Do you actually care about nvme vs sata, or are you just looking for a thing that doesn't have wires? For a tiny 128-256 GB drive, I might think about poking around s-mart and buying one used from someone, particularly if they can tell you how hard it's been used (total TB written). Buying new at that size is kinda pointless because they're basically the same price as a 500GB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
priznat posted:Tower o Gen4 NVMe SSDs I've shared this with my father in law and pci engineer for [major silicon here], apparently u are under arrest
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:18
|
|
)
|
ilkhan posted:What's the current hotness for a dedicated Linux boot drive? Only need 128-256GB, already have a WD black as the windows boot and a 1TB sabrent (?) Rocket as the dedicated games drive. Would like to keep it nvme just to be completely sata free. Thinking WD blue, but is there something meaningfully better? Adata XPG SX8200 Pro HP EX920 The WD Blue is a very low-end design that doesn't have DRAM, so only buy it if you can get it for cheap. Klyith posted:WB Blue is a sata drive in the M.2 form factor. Do you actually care about nvme vs sata, or are you just looking for a thing that doesn't have wires? The current version is NVMe based.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I've shared this with my father in law and Well, same here, and why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
priznat posted:Well, same here, and why? I assumed that most hardware labs look like Frankenstein monstrosities
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:I assumed that most hardware labs look like Frankenstein monstrosities Yeah they definitely do.. our validation platform PCIe card is monstrous and barely fits in most systems and has a ton of oculink cables hanging off it. But it has to be with all the clocking and peripheral options we have to cover in testing. Production systems will just distinct configurations but we have to cover them allll so it gets ugly. But all the high speed links are painstakingly length matched and the board is fabbed out of high end materials to ensure the signal quality is as good as it can be. Interestingly I’ve found even hooking the Gen4 drives up to 1m cables is usually fine with no link recoveries but we usually use 0.5m just to be on the safe side.. Good quality well designed boards with nice cables will forgive a lot!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Let's talk about all the cool stuff you have to build with cardboard boxes and nylon standoffs
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Let's talk about all the cool stuff you have to build with cardboard boxes and nylon standoffs No to either of those, ISO audits and all that. Aluminum standoffs instead which are their own fun. Also at least once a month I catch a jr engineer wandering around outside the lab with a pcb not in an anti static bag. Jfc
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
So, PLC seems to be gaining steam. I thought we'd hit the point of diminishing returns on quantization levels, but smarter minds than mine disagree. Time to get ahead of the curve and trademark HLC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
DLC when
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:DLC when It's a good thing that your Ryzen 10 CPU will have 128 cores to support the differentiation of your DLC's 1024 levels. I'll bet on 4D NAND. Let's store those bits in hyperspace. If it's good enough for the Culture, it's good enough for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 17:04
|
|
|
As if QLC wasn't slow enough. Gotta stay competitive with SMR hard drives!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:As if QLC wasn't slow enough. Gotta stay competitive with SMR hard drives! Honestly, if PLC leads to some 32TB consumer level drives I'm fine with that
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Chikimiki posted:Would if I could, but it's in the M2 slot of the motherboard (Asus Z170 mini-ITX). I'll admit that there is some pressure on the SSD when I put in the mounitng screw, but otherwise it would stick out at an angle
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:Honestly, if PLC leads to some 32TB consumer level drives I'm fine with that This isn't going to happen. It's only 25% more dense than QLC, while being 1/3 the write speed if the TLC->QLC experience is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
where is 3d xpoint to save us all?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:This isn't going to happen. It's only 25% more dense than QLC, while being 1/3 the write speed if the TLC->QLC experience is anything to go by. Yeah each extra bit leads to a smaller gain proportionally but the headaches only increase. Keep adding extra bits and eventually the write speeds won't compete with hard disks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
can't wait til 8 bits and QQLC
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:This isn't going to happen. It's only 25% more dense than QLC, while being 1/3 the write speed if the TLC->QLC experience is anything to go by. 32TB was more hyperbole on my part but SSDs that huge capacity drives that rival spinning drives already exist but are in the enterprise line of drives. I think a lot of people will be fine with rotational drive performance in cold, cold storage cases if the cost/density is compelling
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:32TB was more hyperbole on my part but SSDs that huge capacity drives that rival spinning drives already exist but are in the enterprise line of drives. I think a lot of people will be fine with rotational drive performance in cold, cold storage cases if the cost/density is compelling SSDs with 32+ levels per cell is not a good option for cold storage. The cells will lose their charge over time and this will happen far more quickly than HDDs, tape or optical media degrade. This AnandTech article is a bit dated, but 3-12 months was the nominal deterioration time for unpowered NAND when we were living in an MLC/TLC world. QLC/PLC will not fare as well. SSDs excel at random read and write, which QLC/PLC compromise for a small gain in density. The use case is baffling. Peanut3141 fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:32TB was more hyperbole on my part but SSDs that huge capacity drives that rival spinning drives already exist but are in the enterprise line of drives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:SSDs with 32+ levels per cell is not a good option for cold storage. The cells will lose their charge over time and this will happen far more quickly than HDDs, tape or optical media degrade. [timg]This AnandTech article[/timg] is a bit dated, but 3-12 months was the nominal deterioration time for unpowered NAND when we were living in an MLC/TLC world. QLC/PLC will not fare as well. Cold tier storage as in data that is not accessed frequently and latency is ok, not stuff meant for actually storing offline WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Oct 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 01:26
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Enterprise is just fine with spinning disk level linear performance and ssd level random performance. Just keep stacking them wider until you get your required linear performance. I'm not saying it's for improving cold tier storage performance, just that customers are already expecting a certain level of performance at this tier so if you can get compelling capacity/cost (and acceptable endurance) then you'll have customers. Not every SSD has to have amazing SLC performance to have a customer, that stuff is for your hot tier
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
Peanut3141 posted:This isn't going to happen. It's only 25% more dense than QLC, while being 1/3 the write speed if the TLC->QLC experience is anything to go by. ConanTheLibrarian posted:Yeah each extra bit leads to a smaller gain proportionally but the headaches only increase. Keep adding extra bits and eventually the write speeds won't compete with hard disks. WhyteRyce posted:32TB was more hyperbole on my part but SSDs that huge capacity drives that rival spinning drives already exist but are in the enterprise line of drives. I think a lot of people will be fine with rotational drive performance in cold, cold storage cases if the cost/density is compelling The raw QLC flash performance of the 660p is IIRC in the ~80 MB/s range for sequential transfers, which is already like only 1/2-1/3 the rate of a good, modern HDD. Even if PLC drives yield affordable, higher capacities, and retain better non-sequential performance than HDDs, the sequential performance will make those higher capacities largely non-viable. I mean sure, we'd all love to have cheap 4+ TB SSDs, but not if they can only be filled at ~USB2 speeds. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
You guys do know that QLC exists in Intel drives other than the cheap client stuff. And that these dense enterprise drives are specifically targeted at HDD replacement and storage consolidation scenarios in enterprise environments. PLC is probably going to be targeted at these same areas Not everything has to be targeted as a flag ship performance product. Even as a home user I'd love a big giant slow SSD for my non performance critical stuff if the price and capacity was compelling vs those schucked WDs I'm using QLC/PLC has significant trade-offs but it's not targeted at every situation WhyteRyce fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Oct 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah but the raw QLC NAND performance is still mediocre, to say nothing of PLC. Plus, have you seen the price of the D5-P4x20? 8 TB for well over $1k isn't what I'd consider a compelling price. I'm not even complaining about QLC, though; I consider the 660p in particular to be a solid option for 2 TB. I'm just not looking forward to PLC unless they work some magic with a ton of pseudoSLC, DRAM, etc., and get the price down to well below $90/TB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Yeah but the raw QLC NAND performance is still mediocre, to say nothing of PLC. Plus, have you seen the price of the D5-P4x20? 8 TB for well over $1k isn't what I'd consider a compelling price. Enterprise drives cost more than consumer drives so not a 1:1 comparison to consumer costs and you're paying for more than just the raw NAND. If you want to try and compare within the same product family, I think the QLC varients were roughly $500~$600 less than their TLC equivalent 8TB drives
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 04:16
|
|
|
Right, but now we're going back and forth between consumer and enterprise drives and you were the one who brought up the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
Price no object whats the top performing m.2 for a laptop drive out right now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Sitting around here waiting for a 1TB to hit slickdeals...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Price no object whats the top performing m.2 for a laptop drive out right now? NVME or SATA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
thiazi posted:NVME or SATA? Mostly thinking about loud.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:NVME. Surface Laptop 3 replacement drive. Fastest would be a 970 Pro, among generally available retail M.2 drives. Putting one in a surface would be dumb as heck but that's the answer to your question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:52
|
|
|
I finished organizing a bunch of crap that was just thrown into one big folder on my backup HDD, and decided to check if it needed defragmenting especially since I couldn't remember the last time I did it. Come to find out, Windows had that drive AND my main SSD on a weekly defragmentation schedule for I don't know how long! From what I've read, deframenting SSDs used to be really bad for them but now it doesn't really affect them like it used to? Should I leave it on or turn it off? I have a Samsung Evo 850 250GB that has anywhere from 50 to 100GB free 99% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
owl_pellet posted:I finished organizing a bunch of crap that was just thrown into one big folder on my backup HDD, and decided to check if it needed defragmenting especially since I couldn't remember the last time I did it. Come to find out, Windows had that drive AND my main SSD on a weekly defragmentation schedule for I don't know how long! From what I've read, deframenting SSDs used to be really bad for them but now it doesn't really affect them like it used to? Should I leave it on or turn it off? I have a Samsung Evo 850 250GB that has anywhere from 50 to 100GB free 99% of the time. Windows 8 & 10 just do a trim command when told to defragment a SSD. So they put SSDs on the defrag schedule and you can even manually push the defrag command and it's zero problem. An SSD with sufficient free space probably doesn't need a trim every week, but it doesn't hurt and the regular trims keep full SSDs running fast. If you're using Windows 7 you may have a problem and I believe should disable defrag on your SSD. So that's why the conflicting information -- it's still a bad idea to actually defragment a SSD, in Win7 or with some third-party defrag tool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 19:52 |
|
|
With Windows 7 you run the Windows Experience Index and it will detect your SSD and turn off background defragging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2019 01:20
|
|
