[HN Gopher] Marvell Announces First PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Controller... ___________________________________________________________________ Marvell Announces First PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Controllers: Up to 14 GB/S Author : ksec Score : 198 points Date : 2021-05-27 14:01 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.anandtech.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.anandtech.com) | harveywi wrote: | Marvell? I thought that DC had all the Flash controller rights. | FBISurveillance wrote: | I see what you did there. | deadcore wrote: | lol that made me chuckle | louwrentius wrote: | Try to imagine with all these developments how much performance | you can get from vertical scaling. | | I bet that many applications don't need to care about horizontal | scaling with all the burdens involved before you outgrow the | performance of a 'single' box (aka stack overflow) | PedroBatista wrote: | That ~10W tho ... | | I think right now the real money is in somebody who can implement | PCI-E 5 efficiently, or soon we'll see every SSD with a mini fan | on it. | | ( It's not all PCI-E 5's fault, these controllers have been more | and more power hungry ) | wtallis wrote: | You can always wish for more efficiency, but it's important to | understand that SSDs _have_ actually been getting steadily more | efficient in the Joules per Byte transferred sense. We 're just | seeing a simultaneous concentration and consolidation of | performance that is moving a bit faster, hence the need for | enterprise SSDs to abandon the M.2 form factor in favor of the | somewhat larger and easier to cool EDSFF family. | | One way of looking at things is to realize that until now, a | storage controller handling 14 GB/s of traffic would have been | a full-height RAID card demanding 300 LFM of airflow, and now | we're putting that much throughput into a SSD with a heatsink | that's roughly 1U by 1in in cross section. | bmcahren wrote: | With the location of modern NVME slots, you can't even exceed | 500MB/s without a controller rate limiting due to heat. | PinkPigeon wrote: | I mean, I love the insane GB/sec figures, but does anyone else | mostly care about IOPS? These state 1.8M read and 1M write, which | sounds quite impressive. | CoastalCoder wrote: | Related: anyone know of a good video or diagram for helping CS | students get an intuition regarding the interplay of bandwidth | and latency? Including how saturating bandwidth increases | latency by causing queueing bottlenecks? | | I'm looking for something a bit more visual and dynamic than | the old "station wagon full of tapes going down the highway" | imagery. | | [EDIT: Just for clarification, I feel like I already have a | pretty good grasp on these concepts. I'm looking for good ways | to help others at the ~ undergrad level.] | bombcar wrote: | Here's a post on relative latencies that may be useful: | https://danluu.com/infinite-disk/ | | There was another post I saw recently comparing the increase | in disk SIZE over the last 30 years vs the increase in disk | SPEED vs LATENCY (so size in GB, speed in GB/s, latency in | IOPS) - and how size increases far outstripped speed which | outstripped latency, though all had improved. | | Found it! The key is IOPS/GB as a metric. | | https://brooker.co.za/blog/2021/03/25/latency-bandwidth.html | louwrentius wrote: | Maybe this doesn't answer your question exactly but I | addressed this topic in two blogpost, maybe it helps. | | https://louwrentius.com/understanding-storage-performance- | io... | | https://louwrentius.com/understanding-iops-latency-and- | stora... | wtallis wrote: | I do some rather coarse measurements of random read | throughput vs latency as part of my SSD reviews. See eg. the | bottom of https://www.anandtech.com/show/16636/the-inland- | performance-... | | Those graphs cut off the essentially vertical latency spike | that results from enqueuing requests faster than the | sustained rate at which the drive can serve them. For a | different view in terms of queue depth rather than | throughput, there are some relevant graphs from an older | review that predates io_uring: | https://www.anandtech.com/show/11930/intel-optane-ssd- | dc-p48... | | Generally speaking, latency starts increasing long before | you've reached a drive's throughput limit. Some of this is | inevitable, because you have a relatively small number of | channels (eg. 8) and dies to access in parallel. Once you're | up to the throughput range where you have dozens of requests | in flight at a time, you'll have constant collisions where | multiple requests want to read from the same | plane/die/channel at once, and some of those requests have to | be delayed. But that's mostly about contention and link | utilization between the SSD controller and the NAND flash | itself. The PCIe link is pretty good about handling | transactions with consistently low latency even when on | average it's mostly busy. | uyt wrote: | Are you referring to Little's Law? | MrFoof wrote: | >... _but does anyone else mostly care about IOPS_ | | IOPS helps, but for the average user, hundreds of thousands is | already functionally infinite. What matters at this point is | latency. Where you really feel that is Queue Depth 1. Where you | read a file that points you to other files, that point you to | other files, etc. That is the exact case where the computer is | still making you wait. | | This happens when you start your operating system, it starts | services, you launch apps, etc. Driving that latency down is | the biggest improvement you'll ever see past where we are today | in terms of IOPS and throughput. | | This is where the latest Optane actually shines. Optane doesn't | win on IOPS or throughput, but where it shines is its crazy | latency _(delivered at relatively low power levels)_. Where | latencies are 10% of that of even the highest end PCIe 4.0 NVMe | SSDs. Do something like launch 20 applications at once, and it | 'll be done in a fraction of a time compared to even something | like a Samsung 980 Pro because of latency being more around 10 | ms instead of 100 ms. | | PCIe 5.0 SSDs will cut latencies down to where Optane is today, | but driving latency under 1 ms is where we'll get into a new | level of crazy. | jiggawatts wrote: | I can't upvote this enough. | | Related: Notice how the public cloud marketing material tends | to focus on scalability over other metrics? That's because | scaling horizontally for them is _easy_ : They just plop down | more "stamps" -- a set of clusters and controllers that is | their unit of scale. Need 1,000 more servers in US East? Plop | down 10 more stamps of 100 servers. Easy! | | Except of course this involves an awful lot of networking, | with long cable runs and many hops and virtualisation layers. | The end result is that you can't get _anywhere_ near the | underlying storage latency. | | Azure's Premium SSD has "write flush" latencies of about 4 | milliseconds according to my measurements, which is easily | 100x slower than what my laptop can do with a now very | outdated Samsung NVMe SSD. | | Notice that if you go to their marketing page, they talk | about "low latency" and "lowest latency", but they have _no | numbers?_ Meanwhile the MB /s and IOPS is stated with | numbers: https://azure.microsoft.com/en- | us/pricing/details/managed-di... | Dylan16807 wrote: | Isn't launching 20 applications _at once_ the realm where | flash competes the best? | WesolyKubeczek wrote: | 1) is the actual NAND flash faster, or are we talking about going | from "awesome" to "abysmal" as soon as you run out of DRAM/SLC | caches or what have you? Which, given this kind of bandwidth, is | going to be sooner rather than later. | | 2) this plus QLC cells, which, durability-wise, make TLC look | good, makes me anticipate headlines like "This new PCIe 5.0 SSD | ran out of its rated TBW in a week!" | NullPrefix wrote: | Chia is a godsend for storage prosumers. All you have to do is | look at the speed and check if the warranty is voided by Chia. | wtallis wrote: | These controllers are for enterprise drives where SLC caching | is almost unheard of and all the performance specs are for | sustained performance on a full drive. But the best performance | may only be attainable on a drive with higher capacity than you | can afford. | derefr wrote: | > Which, given this kind of bandwidth, is going to be sooner | rather than later. | | I don't see why -- like NAND up until now, it keeps up by | adding more separately-addressable chips to the board and | striping writes across them. A 512GB SSD with this chip would | hit the wall pretty soon, but they wouldn't waste this | controller on a 512GB SSD. They'd use it for 16TB+ SSDs. | vbezhenar wrote: | > "This new PCIe 5.0 SSD ran out of its rated TBW in a week!" | | If this drive supports claimed 9 GB/s write speed, you can | write 324 TB at 10 hours. Samsung QLC warranty for 1 TB drive | is 360 TBW. | wtallis wrote: | 1 TB of QLC can't get anywhere close to 9 GB/s write speed. | The best is currently about 40 MB/s for a 1 Tbit die, so 320 | MB/s for 1 TByte. The slow write speed of QLC generally | prevents you from burning out a drive in less than a few | weeks. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Is there a theoretical "practical" limit for how fast these | things can physically get (in this particular form factor) | | My understanding is that NVMe interface is pretty much as close | as you can get to the CPU without being integrated. Is there a | world where these things can operate as fast as RAM? | dragontamer wrote: | > My understanding is that NVMe interface is pretty much as | close as you can get to the CPU without being integrated. | | The best for consumer technology, yes. But future I/O protocols | continue to improve and get better. | | NVidia / IBM's collaboration on OpenCAPI (which is deployed in | Summit as a CPU/GPU interface) has 300GBps I/O between the CPU | and GPU, far faster than NVMe speeds (and even DDR4 RAM | bandwidth). | | And future chips may go even faster. I/O is probably one of the | fastest growing aspects of a modern computer. PCIe 5.0, CXL, | OpenCAPI, etc. etc. Lots and lots of new technology coming into | play here. | | There are even some products on making Flash-RAM work on the | DDR4 interface. Non-volatile memory is what that's called. | Intel's Optane works pretty well on that. Its not very | mainstream but I hear reports that its impressive (slower than | real RAM of course, but storage that has the bandwidth of RAM | is still cool). | | > Is there a world where these things can operate as fast as | RAM? | | Well... yesish. Flash is a kind of RAM (random access memory). | | To answer your fundamental question though: No. Flash is | fundamentally higher latency than DRAM (aka: DDR4). But with | enough parallelism / big enough flash arrays (or DRAM arrays), | you can continue to get higher and higher bandwidth. | | At the top-of-the-line is SRAM, the RAM used to make L1 cache | and registers inside of CPUs. This is very expensive and rarely | used. | | -------- | | Then you've got various non-mainstream RAMs: FRAM, MRAM, | Optane, etc. etc. | baybal2 wrote: | Flash chips themselves can't operate as fast as RAM. You can | get as much bandwidth as RAM, but you can not get it as | physically fast as RAM i.e. faster than 200ns | anarazel wrote: | Why? DMA can do transfers to/from CPU caches. | baybal2 wrote: | NAMD flash cells themselves can't charge/discharge faster | m4rtink wrote: | What about those non volatile RAM technologies (IIRC called | 3D XPoint) Intel is using for their Optane stuff ? | | It seems to be kinda in between RAM and flash spec wise. | Der_Einzige wrote: | I actually was one of the people who did performance | benchmarking of 3D XPoint before it came out. In app direct | mode, you can maybe eek out 70% of the throughout and about | 3x worse latency. Also, not all apps support app direct | mode. | | Many customers try to use 3D XPoint as another part of the | cache hierarchy in-between regular ssd and ram. It's | actually pretty neat for faas workloads which want | containers to be "warm" rather than "hot" or "cold"... | wtallis wrote: | To clarify for readers who aren't current on all the | lingo: app direct mode refers to one of the modes for | using the Optane persistent memory modules that connect | to the CPU's DRAM controller. It doesn't apply to the | Optane NVMe SSDs that use PCI Express and require the | software overhead of a traditional IO stack. In a few | years, something like CXL may allow for something close | to the app direct mode to be usable on persistent memory | devices with an SSD-like form factor, but we're not there | yet. | the8472 wrote: | Optane comes in two flavors. As NVMe storage and as NVDIMM. | The former sits a bit below flash in terms of latency. The | latter sits between a bit above DRAM in terms of latency | and is byte-addressable. | baybal2 wrote: | Intel-Micron tried, we seen how it went. | | It wasn't really that fast, or wear resistant to replace | flash. | LinAGKar wrote: | Are you sure? That's not what I've heard. It's just | really expensive, and not very dense. | baybal2 wrote: | Rephrasing: the speed, and write endurance were | sufficiently jaw dropping enough to beat flash's density, | and cost. | gameswithgo wrote: | Just put a battery on ram and you have an sdd as fast as ram, | in principle. | | The big thing about SSDs is that while sequential reads and | writes have steadily improved, many workloads have not. From a | cheap SSD to the best, there is very minimal difference in | things like "how fast does my computer boot", "how fast does my | game or game level load" and "how fast does visual studio | load", or "how fast does gcc compile" | programmer_dude wrote: | A battery is not a solid state device. It often has | liquids/gels (electrolyte) in it. | toast0 wrote: | > From a cheap SSD to the best, there is very minimal | difference. | | I've got a cheap SSD that will change your mind. It has | amazingly poor performance though, I agree with the general | concept that while quantitative differences can be measured, | there's not a qualitative difference between competent SSDs. | kmonsen wrote: | Is your second paragraph really true? These exact worlds are | the reasons many have upgraded their ssd, the PS5 will only | let you start new games from they built in fast hard drive | for example. | topspin wrote: | "Is your second paragraph really true?" | | Partially, on a PC. The difference, on a PC, between a high | end NVMe SSD and a SATA SSD is minimal for most use cases; | small enough that an average user won't perceive much | difference. The workloads in question (booting, loading a | program, compiling code, etc.) involve a lot of operations | that aren't bound by IO performance (network exchanges, | decompressing textures, etc.) and haven't been optimized to | maximize the benefit of high performance storage so the | throughput and IOPS difference of the storage device don't | entirely dominate. | wincy wrote: | The PS5s operating system and even how they package game | files had to be developed from the ground up to realize | these gains. There's a good technical talk about it from | one of Sony's engineers. | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8LyNIT9sg | emkoemko wrote: | so Sony made their own OS for PS5? they are not using | FreeBSD anymore? | wtallis wrote: | They might still be using BSD stuff, but they developed | new IO and compression offload functionality that doesn't | match any off the shelf capabilities I'm aware of. | touisteur wrote: | Might be close to spdk + compress accelerators? | wtallis wrote: | The PS5 and Xbox Series X were designed to offer high- | performance SSDs as the least common denominator that game | developers could rely on, so that game devs could start | doing things that aren't possible if you still have to | allow for the possibility of running off a hard drive. | That's still largely forward-looking; most games currently | available still aren't designed to do that much IO--but the | consoles will treat all new games as if they really rely on | that expectation of high performance IO, and that means | running them only from the NVMe storage. | blackoil wrote: | Are these things blocked on disk i/o? | vbezhenar wrote: | I second that. I have M.2 SSD on laptop and SATA SSD on | desktop. There's no perceived difference on disk operations | for me outside of corner cases like copying huge file. But | there's very noticeable difference between prices. | reader_mode wrote: | Build times should be better no ? Unless you have enough | ram to keep it all im cache ? | staticassertion wrote: | That may be due to the fact that your software (like your | OS) was built for a world of slow spinning disks, or maybe | semi-slow SSDs at best. Not a lot of code is written with | the assumption that disks are actually fast, and it's not | too common to see people organizing sequential read/writes | in their programs (except for dbs). | programmer_dude wrote: | +1, I installed an M.2 SSD in my desktop looking at the | quoted 10x difference in speed but I was taken aback at the | lack of any perceivable improvement. Money down the drain I | guess. | prutschman wrote: | Do you have an NVMe M.2 device specifically? The M.2 form | factor supports both NVMe and SATA (though any given device | or slot might not support one or the other). | | I've got a workstation that has both SATA 3 and M.2 NVMe | SSDs installed. | | The SATA 3 device can do sustained reads of about 550 | MB/sec, fairly close to the 600 MB/sec line rate of SATA 3. | | The NVMe device can do about 1.3 GB/sec, faster than | physically possible for SATA 3. | vbezhenar wrote: | Yes, I have an NVMe M.2 device. Samsung 970 EVO Plus. | branko_d wrote: | Similar effect existed for the HDDs of old. | | As the platter density increased, the head could glide over | more data at the same spindle speed and you would get | increasingly higher sequential speed. But you would _not_ get | much better latency - physically moving the head to a | different track could not be done significantly faster. With | each new generation, you would get only marginally better | speed for many workloads that users actually care about. The | latest HDDs could saturate SATA bus with sequential reads, | but would still dip into KB territory (not MB, let alone GB) | for sufficiently random-access workloads. | | SSDs are similar in a sense that they can be massively | parallelized for the increased throughput, but the latency of | an individual cell is much harder to improve. Benchmarks will | saturate the I/O queue and reach astronomical numbers by | reading many cells in parallel, but for most desktop users, | the queue depth of 1 (and the individual cell latency) is | probably more relevant. That's why a lowly SATA SSD will be | only marginally slower than the newest NVMe SSD for booting | an OS or loading a game. | TwoBit wrote: | Doesn't it depend a lot on the game? A well designed game | could get a lot more out of a fast SSD. | digikata wrote: | NVMe is built on PCIe, so latency wise, they will be limited by | the PCIe latency (roughly an order of magnitude slower than the | memory bus though pcie 5 may be smaller than that) + media | latency. Throughput wise, they are limited by the number of | PCIe lanes that the controller supports, and the system it | plugs into has been sized to allocate. | vmception wrote: | Which of your applications or your clients applications running | at the same time are currently bottlenecked? | Strom wrote: | Even something as simple as grep is bottlenecked by disk speeds | right now. | api wrote: | That's getting to be RAM speeds, but of course not RAM latencies. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Pretty impressive. And if it can really do 4 GB/s[1] of random | write performance is super helpful in database applications. | | I am wondering where the "Cloud SSD" stuff takes it relative to | general purpose use. Does anyone have any insights on that? | | [1] They quote 1 million IOPS and assuming a 4K block size, which | is a good compromise between storage efficiency and throughput, | gives the 4GB/s number. | wtallis wrote: | Here's a version of the OCP NVMe Cloud SSD Spec from last year: | https://www.opencompute.org/documents/nvme-cloud-ssd-specifi... | | It covers a lot of ground, but as far as I'm aware nothing in | there really makes drives less suitable for general server use. | It just tightens up requirements that aren't addressed | elsewhere. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Yeah, pretty much. Thanks I've added it to my specifications | archive. | ksec wrote: | 20x20mm Package. That is quite large. | | ~10W Controller. Doesn't matter on a Desktop or Server. But we | sort of hit the limit what could be done on a Laptop. | | Having said that it doesn't mention what node it was fabbed on. I | assume there are more energy efficiency could be squeezed out. | | <6us Latency. Doesn't say what percentile it is and under what | sort of condition. But Marvell claim this is 30% better than | previous Marvell SSD Controller. | | I think ServeTheHome article [1] is probably better. ( Cant | change it now >< ) | | We also have PCI-E 6.0 [1] finalised by the end of this year | which we cant expect to be in 2023/2024. SSD Controller with | 28GB/s. | | I am also wondering if we are approaching the end of S-Cruve. | | [1] https://www.servethehome.com/marvell-bravera- | sc5-offers-2m-i... | | [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16704/pci- | express-60-status-u... | jagger27 wrote: | 10W definitely matters on servers. You can easily have a dozen | of these in 1U. 120W isn't nothing to dissipate. | | I wonder what node this controller is made on. If it's made on | TSMC N7 then they could cut power consumption roughly in half | by going to N5P. The package size makes me wonder if it's an | even older node however. | dogma1138 wrote: | It's not an issue in servers really, look at how much power | high end NIC consume heck 10GBE SFP+ modules can consumer 5W> | each and you can easily have 48> of those in a switch... | dylan604 wrote: | But a switch doesn't include a hairdrier, er, GPU | generating heat within the enclosure. Server cases have | potentially multiple GPUs, CPUs, plus now these 10W | controller chips | lostlogin wrote: | You are correct. | | Some switches could do with much better cooling. A POE | switch or one that is putting 10gb down a cat 6 cable is | very toasty though. I've got one that is borderline too | hot to touch. Thanks Ubiquiti. | touisteur wrote: | Oh you don't want your hand near a Mellanox connectx 6 | then. 200GbE doesn't come cold... | zamadatix wrote: | Most switches don't allow 5W pull in every port, those | levels are usually only found in 10G copper SFPs which | can't reach full distance due to power requirements so | typically pull max allowed (or higher) levels. Typical 10G | SFP+ SR or Twinax will consume about a watt per module. The | ASIC may be a couple hundred watts under load. | | Servers typically have much higher power density unless | you're talking 400G switches compared to low end servers. | lmilcin wrote: | > ~10W Controller. Doesn't matter on a Desktop or Server. | | Of course it does. For one, that's heat you have to efficiently | remove or face SSD throttling back on you or degrade over time. | It does not make sense to buy expensive hardware if it is going | to show impaired performance due to thermal throttling. | | This makes the business of putting together your PC this much | more complicated, because up until recently you only had to | take care about CPU and GPU and everything else was mostly | afterthought. | | We are already facing motherboards with their own fans, now I | suppose it is time for SSDs. | dragontamer wrote: | Weren't 10,000 or 15,000 RPM hard drives like 15W or 20W or | something? | | These 2U or 4U cases, or tower desktop cases, were designed | to efficiently remove heat from storage devices, as well as | the 3000W++ that the dual socket CPU and 8way GPUs will pull. | | 10W is tiny for desktop and server. Barely a factor in | overall cooling plans. | lmilcin wrote: | They were, but 3,5" drives are large hunks of aluminium | with many times the surface. Meaning that as long as you | have some airflow around them and the air is not too hot | they are fine. | | Also the heat was mostly generated by motor and an actuator | and not the controller. | zamadatix wrote: | High performance m.2 drives come with removable finned | heatsinks for this reason. Without them they rely on | throttling during sustained heavy workload. Dissipating | 10 Watts in a desktop isn't the concern. | Matt3o12_ wrote: | The heatsink doesn't really work, though, and is | marketing for the most part [1]. | | I have a crucial P1 NVME SSD and I can make it overheat | pretty reliably. Pretty much any synthetic workload makes | it overload if the SSD is empty (it reaches 70deg pretty | quickly and even starts throttling until it reaches 80deg | and the whole system starts shuttering because of extreme | throttling do it doesn't damage itself. Although I have | not properly tested it, it seems that not using any | heatsinks from my motherboard makes the temps actually | better but it still overheats. | | The main reason it can overheat quickly is probably | because its sitting in a really bad position where it | gets close to zero airflow despite being in an airflow | focused case. Most motherboards place the nvme slot | directly under the GPU. The main problem seems to be that | the controller is overheating when it's writing at close | to 2000 MB/s. It's also important to note that only the | controller (an actual relatively powerful ARM processor), | not the flash memory, seems to overheat. | | Fortunately, this is mostly not an issue because it's a | QLC drive and the workload is unrealistic in the real | world. When writing to an empty drive at 2000MB/s (Queue | depth 4, 128k sequential writes), it takes 2 minutes | until the cache is full. The way its currently used, it | takes 30 secs for the cache to become full and for write | speeds to drop to 150MB/s. The only way it has every | overheated in the real world was during the loading | screen of a gameplay when it reached 78C quickly (and I | only noticed it in the hardware monitor). If the GPU | hadn't heated up the nvme drive before (it was sitting at | 65C mostly idle), and starved it for air, I doubt it | would have hit 60C. | | So until motherboards start placing nvme where it can get | some actual cooling, or they make actual functioning | heatsinks, their power usage can make a difference. | | [1]: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2781-msi-m2-heat- | shield-i... but there are many more articles/forum posts | with similar issues. | zamadatix wrote: | The Crucial P1 is a budget SSD that doesn't come with a | proper heatsink, similar in quality to that god awful | "heat shield" in that linked review. When I say "High | performance m.2 drives come with removable finned | heatsinks" I mean an actual high performance drives that | come with a finned heatsinks like | https://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Force- | MP600-Gen4-PCIe/dp/B07S... not examples of budget drives | paired with flat pieces of metal. | | Also your high performance SSD should be going in the | direct-to-CPU slot to the right of the GPU, not under it. | baybal2 wrote: | The thing is the flash chips themselves are relatively | cool. | | It's the controller that gets most of the heat from | running PCIE at top speed. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Would be cool to have a general liquid cooling solution for | all components. We'd install a radiator outside our homes | just like an air conditioning unit and then connect the | computers to it. | AtlasBarfed wrote: | Probably not a small node, remember flash gets more fragile the | smaller the process. | | SSD makers are layering on larger nodes, and focusing on | multibit (they are basically at PLC/5bit flash for consumer or | non-heavy wear, which is frankly a bit nuts) | Dylan16807 wrote: | This is a controller, not flash. | bhouston wrote: | 2023/2024 I suspect you meant to write. | | I do like the fact that SSD bandwidth may be approaching memory | bandwidth. | ksec wrote: | >2023/2024 I suspect you meant to write. | | ROFL. Thanks. Keep thinking about the good old days. | CyberDildonics wrote: | SSD bandwidth is not really approaching modern memory | bandwidth - a computer with one of these will probably have 4 | to 8 channels of DDR4 at 25GB/s each with DDR5 released about | a year ago. That is 100GB/s to 200GB/s currently and more by | the time PCIe 5 becomes a reality. | | I am sure if you go back a few years you can find systems | that have the same or less memory bandwidth than this has | now, but they have both been moving forward enough that SSDs | are still not close. That being said, between bandwidth and | random access times, swapping out to disk backed virtual | memory is very pragmatic and isn't the death of performance | it used to be. | dekhn wrote: | I think a fairer comparison would be 1 DDR channel to one | SSD, or comparing the 8 channels to a multi-SSD striped | RAID array. SSDs are ~7GB/sec, so I would say that SSD | bandwidth is roughly within one or two orders of magnitude | slower than RAM. I certainly wouldn't want to replace an | app optimized to use all the RAM on a machine with one | running on a lower-RAM SSD machine, though. | muxator wrote: | Maybe I'm old. I never used to think that an application | that is able to use my whole ram is optimized. It evokes | exactly the opposite impression, indeed. | | I think I understand what you mean, but the gut reaction | is that one. | | Yeah, I am really old, after all. | | Edit: let me explain. Something that is able to use the | whole space of a flat memory model is way less | sophisticated than something that is able to deal with a | complex memory hierarchy. Our machines are indeed a | complex pyramid of different subsystems with varying | bandwidth and latency characteristics. A program that is | able to embrace the inherent hierarchical nature of our | machines (or multi-node systems) is way more "optimized", | according to my sensibility. | dekhn wrote: | I'm talking about situations like search, where you hold | the entire index in ram. Total # of machines = size of | index / indexserver ram. Usually the apps that run on | these have, say, 96 cores and they're using about 80, and | the idle time is mostly instructions waiting for memory | fetches. | | Typically that index fronts a disk repository which | wouldn't fit in RAM, although over time, what fit in RAM, | what fit in disk, what lived in RAM, what got cached in | RAM, etc, have changed over time. | | BTW, I'm probably of the same generation as you and the | single most important lesson I ever learned for computing | performance was "add more RAM"; in the days when I first | started using Linux with 4MB of RAM, it wasn't enough to | do X11, g++ and emacs all at the same time without | swapping, so I spent my hard-earned money to max out the | RAM, at which point it didn't swap and I could actually | do software development quickly. | terafo wrote: | If you have 8 of these on a single system, you are getting | very close to RAM bandwidth. Still, there is issue of | latency and TBW. | jopsen wrote: | Now if we could just make a Beowulf cluster of these... | bhouston wrote: | Beowulf, that is a name i haven't heard in a long time. | TwoBit wrote: | IMO disk tech of 25 GB/s vs 100 GB/s for memory counts as | approaching. | anarazel wrote: | It really depends on the type of memory usage though. On | current Intel multi-socket the bandwidth a single process | can have for core meditated memory accesses, even for node | local memory, is seriously disappointing. Often < 10GB/s. | Yes, it scales reasonably nicely, but it's very painful to | tune for that, given that client and low core count, single | socket, SKUs end up with > 35GB/s. And that this affects | you even from within VMs that are on a single socket. | | I heard that ice lake sp improves a bit in the area, but | haven't gotten access to one yet. | walrus01 wrote: | Given a theoretical either/or choice between a PCIE 5.0 SSD, or | more PCI-E lanes using the tech we have now, I would rather have | a greater number of PCI-E 4.0 lanes in single socket | consumer/workstation grade motherboards. | | Leaving open the possibility for dual NVME SSD in a workstation | along with a x16 video card, and 10Gbps NICs. | Synaesthesia wrote: | Still not good enough for PS5 hey Sony? | dvfjsdhgfv wrote: | It looks like we'll get fantastic speeds in a few years. Now it's | time to take care of durability. | dstaley wrote: | Obviously there's always a customer for faster speeds, but have | we even hit the upper threshold of PCIe 4 in the consumer market? | wmf wrote: | SN850 is getting close to the limit of PCIe 4.0. | https://www.anandtech.com/show/16505/the-western-digital-wd-... | wtallis wrote: | The first wave of consumer gen4 SSDs that all used the Phison | E16 controller were only good for about 5 GB/s out of the ~7 | GB/s possible (and 3.5 GB/s on PCIe gen3). But the newer gen4 | consumer drives that started hitting the market last fall come | a lot closer, and this summer a lot of those are getting | refreshed with newer, faster NAND that will have PCIe 4.0 as | thoroughly saturated as PCIe 3.0 has been for the past few | years. Phison has already clearly stated that their next high- | end controller after the recently-launched E18 will be a PCIe | gen5 chip, and the E18 is fast enough to finish out the gen4 | era. | dstaley wrote: | Absolutely wild that PCIe 4.0 was saturated just two years | after introduction in the consumer market. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-27 23:00 UTC)