> Kioxia's 1 Tb (128 MB) and 2 Tb (256 TB) 3D QLC NAND
Both of these "MB" and "TB" should be "GB" instead (I admit I laughed aloud when I saw the first to undershoot 1024x and the second to overshoot the same amount at the same time...).
Should not be that much worse, about 10%. Nothing you cannot fix with faster built in memory. IMHO, if it was better than 10% they would make it a marketing bullet point. still, because of good IOPS, it will be rare for anyone to notice the difference. QLC offer sizes and prices that everyone want, and it's not as bad as when TLC started, just because you will have an issue to use 0.2DWPD of 2/4/8TB drive every day for 5 years. We mostly do about 30-100GB writes per day, averaged, which means to kill 2TB QLC you need about 15 years. comparable price TLC, will age faster, because you fill half with files you don't use every day, and only half experience serious wear.
What's the Latency and DWPD ? QLC is very bad for the storage but since Enterprise they are built with somewhat better standards but the DWPD will be lagging a lot and also consistent performance as well. Nothing can replace the SLC, MLC and now TLC. Or the superior Optane.
what matters in the Enterprise World ("Make it so!") is the cost/benefit analysis of one device over another. if QLC crap lasts long enough to be .0001 cent cheaper per bit per warranty time, then they'll get bought and scrapped just at warranty expiration.
Of course larger cheaper capacities look more attractive. But this is exactly the case when market pushes companies to make the stuff you better avoid at any cost. Even TLC i'd avoid too and used MLC and in some cases even SLC
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
6 Comments
Back to Article
Bigos - Friday, July 5, 2024 - link
> Kioxia's 1 Tb (128 MB) and 2 Tb (256 TB) 3D QLC NANDBoth of these "MB" and "TB" should be "GB" instead (I admit I laughed aloud when I saw the first to undershoot 1024x and the second to overshoot the same amount at the same time...).
Oxford Guy - Saturday, July 6, 2024 - link
I didn't see the latency compared with TLC.deil - Tuesday, July 9, 2024 - link
Should not be that much worse, about 10%. Nothing you cannot fix with faster built in memory. IMHO, if it was better than 10% they would make it a marketing bullet point.still, because of good IOPS, it will be rare for anyone to notice the difference.
QLC offer sizes and prices that everyone want, and it's not as bad as when TLC started, just because you will have an issue to use 0.2DWPD of 2/4/8TB drive every day for 5 years.
We mostly do about 30-100GB writes per day, averaged, which means to kill 2TB QLC you need about 15 years.
comparable price TLC, will age faster, because you fill half with files you don't use every day, and only half experience serious wear.
Silver5urfer - Sunday, July 7, 2024 - link
What's the Latency and DWPD ? QLC is very bad for the storage but since Enterprise they are built with somewhat better standards but the DWPD will be lagging a lot and also consistent performance as well. Nothing can replace the SLC, MLC and now TLC. Or the superior Optane.FunBunny2 - Monday, July 8, 2024 - link
"What's the Latency and DWPD ?"what matters in the Enterprise World ("Make it so!") is the cost/benefit analysis of one device over another. if QLC crap lasts long enough to be .0001 cent cheaper per bit per warranty time, then they'll get bought and scrapped just at warranty expiration.
SanX - Friday, July 12, 2024 - link
Of course larger cheaper capacities look more attractive. But this is exactly the case when market pushes companies to make the stuff you better avoid at any cost. Even TLC i'd avoid too and used MLC and in some cases even SLC