Samsung Outs Z-NAND's Performance; Intel's Optane On Notice

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • tsnor
    3dxp (optane) drives get to 10 usec read times with 1-2 usec of media read time.

    Typical NAND flash read time is 50 usec.

    It'll be interesting to see how Samsung gets to 12 - 20µs read times with zFlash -- if this is just a DRAM buffer in front of FLASH number that would be very disappointing and applications with random read patterns would see bad read performance.

    If this is truly a consistent 12 - 20µs read time then this is something new for NAND. (aside: think this is what the author Paul Acorn meant by saying "Samsung hasn't released QoS metrics, such as 99th percentile performance".)
    Reply
  • derekullo
    A DRAM buffer is actually very good for random reads.

    In fact Tom's has mentioned in previous articles, ssds without DRAM buffers tend to not have great performance.

    The main factors are:
    1. The speed of the DRAM buffer, not all emulated slc is the same.
    2. The algorithm used, magical black box that turns data into awesome data.
    3. Size of DRAM buffer, if you only have a 5 gigabyte buffer it doesn't matter what values you use for the first 2.

    A best case scenario, but still valid, the Samsung 850 Evo 4 Terabyte has 96 gigabytes of buffer before performance drops to tlc levels.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-850-evo-4tb-ssd-review,4623-3.html
    Reply
  • tsnor
    20390212 said:
    A DRAM buffer is actually very good for random reads.

    In fact Tom's has mentioned in previous articles, ssds without DRAM buffers tend to not have great performance.

    The main factors are:
    1. The speed of the DRAM buffer, not all emulated slc is the same.
    2. The algorithm used, magical black box that turns data into awesome data.
    3. Size of DRAM buffer, if you only have a 5 gigabyte buffer it doesn't matter what values you use for the first 2.

    A best case scenario, but still valid, the Samsung 850 Evo 4 Terabyte has 96 gigabytes of buffer before performance drops to tlc levels.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-850-evo-4tb-ssd-review,4623-3.html

    "..ssds without DRAM buffers tend to not have great performance..." agree completely for NAND flash based SSDs today, this is not true for 3DXP based drives. THIS is exactly why the samsung z-nand flash is interesting. Hope it is *not* using a cache to get it's published numbers.

    "...A DRAM buffer is actually very good for random reads...." unless you get some form of locality (non-random) behavior a read cache is useless. For example, you do email for a while then shift to loading a game. The records you need to load the game are not in the cache. Unless you detect sequential (non-random) patterns and pre-stage none of the records you need will be in the cache. For random read workloads a 3xdp drive will have an advantage over a nand flash drive with a dram cache. For sequential and predictable workloads the NAND flash drive might do OK.

    ...has 96 gigabytes of buffer before performance drops to tlc levels..." This is for WRITES, not reads. It allows the drive to quickly consume a lot of writes (much faster response then if it tried to write to TLC flash). But that is not used for reads (unless the data happens to have just been written to the buffer and has not yet been destaged).
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    20390212 said:
    A DRAM buffer is actually very good for random reads.

    In fact Tom's has mentioned in previous articles, ssds without DRAM buffers tend to not have great performance.

    The main factors are:
    1. The speed of the DRAM buffer, not all emulated slc is the same.
    2. The algorithm used, magical black box that turns data into awesome data.
    3. Size of DRAM buffer, if you only have a 5 gigabyte buffer it doesn't matter what values you use for the first 2.

    A best case scenario, but still valid, the Samsung 850 Evo 4 Terabyte has 96 gigabytes of buffer before performance drops to tlc levels.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-850-evo-4tb-ssd-review,4623-3.html
    You're mixing up DRAM with pseudo-SLC NAND buffer/cache.

    Either way these numbers they're claiming can't be the result of DRAM alone. They had to make other improvements, probably at the cost of density. I don't think it will fully challenge Optane in terms of performance, but it will serve as a more-affordable alternative until they have something other than NAND to deploy as a challenger.
    Reply
  • Nintendork
    Toms is another website going donwhill with intrusive ads making their web even slower meanwhile the posting system is as retarded as ever.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20390027 said:
    It'll be interesting to see how Samsung gets to 12 - 20µs read times with zFlash -- if this is just a DRAM buffer in front of FLASH
    If the benchmark isn't complete junk, then a DRAM buffer will be virtually useless with random reads (which should be distributed throughout the whole drive).
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Where this thing probably still can't compete is in NVDIMMs. Those require good random access performance down to the size of a cacheline - or even byte! The performance of NAND flash is too reliant on large block operations for it to compete, there.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20390797 said:
    Toms is another website going donwhill with intrusive ads making their web even slower meanwhile the posting system is as retarded as ever.
    Comment on the forums. There's nothing wrong with the forum software, and they have no ads.
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    20390797 said:
    Toms is another website going donwhill with intrusive ads making their web even slower meanwhile the posting system is as retarded as ever.
    As Bit said, you can click "Comment from the forums" to solve the second problem. As far as ads on articles go: Install Adguard or similar. I personally disable Adguard protection for select sites including Tom's, because they need revenue to keep putting out reviews I like to read without a paywall. I find performance is reasonable even with Adguard turned off (FCU, Edge). But YMMV and I'd rather see people run a decent adblocker rather than fret about the ads.

    20391337 said:
    Comment on the forums. There's nothing wrong with the forum software, and they have no ads.
    The forum software is definitely superior for commenting. But technically there are still SOME ads when browsing comments from the forum. Banner ads - not nearly as obtrusive though.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    20392607 said:
    The forum software is definitely superior for commenting. But technically there are still SOME ads when browsing comments from the forum. Banner ads - not nearly as obtrusive though.
    I'm using no ad blockers - just standard Firefox - and I never see ads on the forums.
    Reply