Yeah we do, and the performance numbers compare favourably to Samsung PM1643. It's the density and power saving that wins it, sometimes need to get a lot of fast storage in 1U rather than 2U servers, less racks, less power, fewer drives to maintain.
Looking at the data sheet the latency units should be microseconds (μs) not milliseconds (ms). Hundreds of milliseconds would be crazy and near unusable latency for an SSD... might as well use a hard drive in that case ;)
The only moment you'll notice a sATA 600 being connected to a sATA 300 chip is when you move a big file from 1 SSD to the other. Most people only have 1 SSD per computer. Going from 600 to 1200 only makes the platform more expensive and power hungry. I can't notice a difference when working on a Samsung 830 or a Samsung 970 evo except when the 830 uses Rapid mode.
Because consumer HDDs never got fast enough to come close to saturating SATA like 15k RPM drives did for enterprise. And because the SATA/SAS driver stack has too much overhead to be efficient for SSDs; so for faster SSDs they created a new one that fits with how flash works called NVME instead.
If we ever get 12GB SATA it'lll because spinning rust is still the cheapest way to store bulk data 5 or 10 years from now and the biggest HDDs are able to saturate SATA-6GB.
They did. SATA 3.0 has a speed limit of 6 Gbit/s (as you must surely know) but SATA 3.2, which was released in 2013, has a speed limit of 16 Gbit/s. SATA 3.2 is more commonly known as "SATA Express". SATA Express supports legacy SATA, legacy PCIe 2.0/3.0 via AHCI and even PCIe 2.0/3.0 over NVMe.
It can only use two PCIe lanes though, so when using two PCIe 3.0 lanes it can reach a raw speed of 16 Gbit/s (2 × 8 GT/s), or an effective speed of a hair below 2 GB/s (1970 MB/s). SATA Express was largely unsuccessful, and is barely a thing today, due to the appearance and prevalence of the more flexible M.2/U.2 ports for small internal SSDs, which were designed to work primarily with NVMe (I am not sure about U.2 but M.2 also supports SATA 3.0, though largely for backwards compatibility).
edit : Disregard the bits about the U.2 connector. I am not sure what I had in mind but U.2 is not exactly as small as M.2. In fact U.2 is mechanically identical to the SATA Express device plug, so in a sense SATA Express "survives" through it.
I miss my 6.4GB Western Digital Caviar drive. It was an upgrade dropped into a 100MHz Pentium desktop to replace the 1.6GB drive. Between that and feeding it 32MB of RAM (upgraded from 8MB) it was a good system aside from the 1MB Trident VGA controller which I never did get around to upgrading.
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
20 Comments
Back to Article
eek2121 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
awe no pricing? ;)TennesseeTony - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Somewhere between a SpaceX LEO launch and a NASA SLS launch to the moon.... :Dshabby - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
I'm in for two!eek2121 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Some would pay a considerable amount of money for a 15 TB SAS SSD.mrvco - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
I'll dream about 4x 18TB SSDs sliding into my Synology NAS tonight.ballsystemlord - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
I'm a similar dream.I wonder what the pricing is like....
close - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
You know how the saying goes, if you have to ask...kingpotnoodle - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Yeah we do, and the performance numbers compare favourably to Samsung PM1643. It's the density and power saving that wins it, sometimes need to get a lot of fast storage in 1U rather than 2U servers, less racks, less power, fewer drives to maintain.JohnLook - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
@Anton Shilovare the ms units correct? It seems like a huge latency for an ssd ...
eek2121 - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
given all the hardware features included, it wouldn't surprise me.Huacanacha - Wednesday, November 6, 2019 - link
Looking at the data sheet the latency units should be microseconds (μs) not milliseconds (ms). Hundreds of milliseconds would be crazy and near unusable latency for an SSD... might as well use a hard drive in that case ;)https://documents.westerndigital.com/content/dam/d...
Anton Shilov - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Thanks for sharp eyes. Fixed!DanNeely - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
I'm still seeing ms for the first pair in the ranges. Did you miss those errors, or should I blame caching?Santoval - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
I see them as well, I don't think they are due to caching.yetanotherhuman - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
What I want to know is: why did the consumer never get a 12Gbps SATA?Foeketijn - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
The only moment you'll notice a sATA 600 being connected to a sATA 300 chip is when you move a big file from 1 SSD to the other.Most people only have 1 SSD per computer.
Going from 600 to 1200 only makes the platform more expensive and power hungry.
I can't notice a difference when working on a Samsung 830 or a Samsung 970 evo except when the 830 uses Rapid mode.
DanNeely - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
Because consumer HDDs never got fast enough to come close to saturating SATA like 15k RPM drives did for enterprise. And because the SATA/SAS driver stack has too much overhead to be efficient for SSDs; so for faster SSDs they created a new one that fits with how flash works called NVME instead.If we ever get 12GB SATA it'lll because spinning rust is still the cheapest way to store bulk data 5 or 10 years from now and the biggest HDDs are able to saturate SATA-6GB.
Santoval - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
They did. SATA 3.0 has a speed limit of 6 Gbit/s (as you must surely know) but SATA 3.2, which was released in 2013, has a speed limit of 16 Gbit/s. SATA 3.2 is more commonly known as "SATA Express". SATA Express supports legacy SATA, legacy PCIe 2.0/3.0 via AHCI and even PCIe 2.0/3.0 over NVMe.It can only use two PCIe lanes though, so when using two PCIe 3.0 lanes it can reach a raw speed of 16 Gbit/s (2 × 8 GT/s), or an effective speed of a hair below 2 GB/s (1970 MB/s). SATA Express was largely unsuccessful, and is barely a thing today, due to the appearance and prevalence of the more flexible M.2/U.2 ports for small internal SSDs, which were designed to work primarily with NVMe (I am not sure about U.2 but M.2 also supports SATA 3.0, though largely for backwards compatibility).
Santoval - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
edit : Disregard the bits about the U.2 connector. I am not sure what I had in mind but U.2 is not exactly as small as M.2. In fact U.2 is mechanically identical to the SATA Express device plug, so in a sense SATA Express "survives" through it.PeachNCream - Thursday, November 7, 2019 - link
I miss my 6.4GB Western Digital Caviar drive. It was an upgrade dropped into a 100MHz Pentium desktop to replace the 1.6GB drive. Between that and feeding it 32MB of RAM (upgraded from 8MB) it was a good system aside from the 1MB Trident VGA controller which I never did get around to upgrading.