Cool, but what controllers really must be focusing on is random performance. We already have more sequential performance than needed. More really wouldn't make a difference.
Sure, but does your comment have anything to do with the article? Random read throughput more than tripled going from SM2260 to SM2262, whereas random write more than doubled. Both gains surpass the sequential gains.
I would say random performance at low QDs and latency still have room & need for improvement.
"Random read throughput more than tripled going from SM2260 to SM2262, whereas random write more than doubled."
Those are "up to " numbers, actual sustained performance is massively disappointing.
Take that crystaldiskmark image and the performance claims above it. It claims 370k IOPS for random reads, but it only scores a mere 75 mb per second. 370k iops * 4kb is more than 1.4 GB per second, and actual performance is the staggering 18.6 TIMES lower. Random writes will most likely by even worse if the workload extends beyond the 1 GB used in testing, as the drive would run out of cache.
If you disregard the "up to" claims and focus on actual real world performance, you will realize than random reads improvements are minuscule. So yeah, contrary to your claims, based on taking PR numbers for granted, sequential performance has seen significantly more improvements than random performance.
"Up to" obviously means at high QD, which results in 1496 MB/s = 374k iops for reads and 1142 MB/s = 286k iops for writes. That's pretty close to the claimed values for pre-production firmware, I'd say.
You may argue that performance at low QD is more important for desktop use, and I have already agreed to that. However, if you want to talk about improvements (as in your 1st post) you'll have to compare similar quantities. Either high QD for new & old hardware (as I did) or low QD for new & old hardware (I don't have the numbers for that).
I'm confused by the first picture. Is that an NVMe SSD stuck into a standard PCI-E x16 slot? Is that something that could potentially work or is it just a shitty picture?
There's an adapter between the M.2 connector used by the SSD and the PCIe add-in card connector. But all it's really doing is making up for the different pitch between contacts on the two card types. Beyond that, PCIe lanes are just PCIe lanes, and everything supports auto-negotiation of link speed and lane count.
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
ddriver - Friday, August 25, 2017 - link
Cool, but what controllers really must be focusing on is random performance. We already have more sequential performance than needed. More really wouldn't make a difference.MrSpadge - Friday, August 25, 2017 - link
Sure, but does your comment have anything to do with the article? Random read throughput more than tripled going from SM2260 to SM2262, whereas random write more than doubled. Both gains surpass the sequential gains.I would say random performance at low QDs and latency still have room & need for improvement.
ddriver - Friday, August 25, 2017 - link
"Random read throughput more than tripled going from SM2260 to SM2262, whereas random write more than doubled."Those are "up to " numbers, actual sustained performance is massively disappointing.
Take that crystaldiskmark image and the performance claims above it. It claims 370k IOPS for random reads, but it only scores a mere 75 mb per second. 370k iops * 4kb is more than 1.4 GB per second, and actual performance is the staggering 18.6 TIMES lower. Random writes will most likely by even worse if the workload extends beyond the 1 GB used in testing, as the drive would run out of cache.
If you disregard the "up to" claims and focus on actual real world performance, you will realize than random reads improvements are minuscule. So yeah, contrary to your claims, based on taking PR numbers for granted, sequential performance has seen significantly more improvements than random performance.
MrSpadge - Friday, August 25, 2017 - link
"Up to" obviously means at high QD, which results in 1496 MB/s = 374k iops for reads and 1142 MB/s = 286k iops for writes. That's pretty close to the claimed values for pre-production firmware, I'd say.You may argue that performance at low QD is more important for desktop use, and I have already agreed to that. However, if you want to talk about improvements (as in your 1st post) you'll have to compare similar quantities. Either high QD for new & old hardware (as I did) or low QD for new & old hardware (I don't have the numbers for that).
Taurothar - Saturday, August 26, 2017 - link
I'm confused by the first picture. Is that an NVMe SSD stuck into a standard PCI-E x16 slot? Is that something that could potentially work or is it just a shitty picture?Billy Tallis - Saturday, August 26, 2017 - link
There's an adapter between the M.2 connector used by the SSD and the PCIe add-in card connector. But all it's really doing is making up for the different pitch between contacts on the two card types. Beyond that, PCIe lanes are just PCIe lanes, and everything supports auto-negotiation of link speed and lane count.