Drive Writes Per Day. Normalizing against drive capacity makes it easier to compare drives of different capacity than if you only look at total bytes written rating. Enterprise drives typically range from 0.3 DWPD for read-oriented SSDs to 3 or 10 for the most heavily overprovisioned SSDs for write-intensive workloads.
DWPD is nice for comparatives across a drive family, but awful for comparatives to other manufacturers (since it incorporates warrantied years). ShopBLT looks to have the 1.92TB version coming in at ~$700?!?
I like that method as well since drive size is fairly basic when comparing drives. Anything that basically means, this drive will last X before it dies. DWPD is basically saying this drive will last X before it dies... for a specific amount of time that requires you to do further research on the length of the warranty if you wish to compare our number to another drive made by someone else using a different warranty length. ;)
So basically they are making their own OCZ Intrepid, likely same controller, just using Micron instead of Toshiba NAND. I wonder if it will be the same Marvell eMLC reference design as the 3700, sans the replaceable cap?
Why not just use their SAS-drives? 12Gb/s SAS variant should be faster too. I'm sure there's lot's of other drives to choose from for those that want to use SATA drives for storage.
Agreed, there wouldn't be any reason to drop from SAS to SATA, except the manufacturers are pricing them in a way that creates a reason. Seagate's closest 1.92GB SAS equivalent is priced over $2k. Considering the cost of storage in the enterprise world, going SATA with shorter server life cycles can save quite a bit if you don't absolutely need the IOPS benefit of SAS. That said, the number of SATA SSD options that are not exorbitant in price or anemic in endurance is still kinda small. This drive is borderline anemic in endurance for the enterprise 'read' category, but it is still one to watch.
They have not announced pricing from what I can tell. But I believe it's around 800 dollars for the 1.92TB drive. The drives DWPD is on the low side even for that price.
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
13 Comments
Back to Article
jabber - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Hmmmm....much of a muchness.Lazlo Panaflex - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Wat?I'm still rocking a 600 (non-pro) 240 gigger in my gaming rig. Great little drive.
Chaitanya - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Whats DWPD? never heard of that measure.Billy Tallis - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Drive Writes Per Day. Normalizing against drive capacity makes it easier to compare drives of different capacity than if you only look at total bytes written rating. Enterprise drives typically range from 0.3 DWPD for read-oriented SSDs to 3 or 10 for the most heavily overprovisioned SSDs for write-intensive workloads.Riordan - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
DWPD is nice for comparatives across a drive family, but awful for comparatives to other manufacturers (since it incorporates warrantied years). ShopBLT looks to have the 1.92TB version coming in at ~$700?!?Paper spec comparisons...
Samsungs PM863 1.92TB (current economical enterprise 'read' king)
Cost: ~$900
Endurance: 2.8 PBW
Seq Read: 510 MB/s
Seq Write: 475 MB/s
Rand Read: 99k IOPS
Rand Write: 18k IOPS
I hope we may have a contender. Samsung needs someone else pushing them in the budget enterprise SSD market.
stephenbrooks - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
I prefer just "drive writes". E.g. your 2.8 PBW / 1.92TB = 1458 drive writes.Riordan - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
I like that method as well since drive size is fairly basic when comparing drives. Anything that basically means, this drive will last X before it dies. DWPD is basically saying this drive will last X before it dies... for a specific amount of time that requires you to do further research on the length of the warranty if you wish to compare our number to another drive made by someone else using a different warranty length. ;)Samus - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
So basically they are making their own OCZ Intrepid, likely same controller, just using Micron instead of Toshiba NAND. I wonder if it will be the same Marvell eMLC reference design as the 3700, sans the replaceable cap?Penti - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Why not just use their SAS-drives? 12Gb/s SAS variant should be faster too. I'm sure there's lot's of other drives to choose from for those that want to use SATA drives for storage.Riordan - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Agreed, there wouldn't be any reason to drop from SAS to SATA, except the manufacturers are pricing them in a way that creates a reason. Seagate's closest 1.92GB SAS equivalent is priced over $2k. Considering the cost of storage in the enterprise world, going SATA with shorter server life cycles can save quite a bit if you don't absolutely need the IOPS benefit of SAS. That said, the number of SATA SSD options that are not exorbitant in price or anemic in endurance is still kinda small. This drive is borderline anemic in endurance for the enterprise 'read' category, but it is still one to watch.Penti - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
They have not announced pricing from what I can tell. But I believe it's around 800 dollars for the 1.92TB drive. The drives DWPD is on the low side even for that price.shabby - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Dear Seagate, here are some other name suggestions...Nitro
Nytro (already taken)
Naitro
Najtro
Naytro
pedjache - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Comment of the day!