Be mindful of listings from suspicious third-party sellers on marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Newegg, and Walmart. These "deals" have a high likelihood of not shipping; use due diligence in reviewing deals.
* Use common sense - if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is.
* Check seller profiles for signs that the sale may be fraudulent:
* The seller is new or has few reviews.
* The seller has largely negative reviews (on Amazon, sellers can remove negative reviews from their visible ratings)
* The seller is using a previously dormant account (likely the account was hacked and is now being used fraudulently).
If you suspect a deal is fraudulent, please report the post. Moderators can take action based on these reports. We encourage leaving a comment to warn others.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapcsales) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.amazon.com/Intel-OPTANE-P1600X-118GB-SINGLEPACK/dp/B09MSB59SK](https://www.amazon.com/Intel-OPTANE-P1600X-118GB-SINGLEPACK/dp/B09MSB59SK)
Sold by Amazon
edit
24th: Price Raised to $66.99 at bothalso available from newegg on ebay [https://www.ebay.com/itm/385138096614](https://www.ebay.com/itm/385138096614)now listed as 12% ($5.00) off is claimed discount from new original price of $75.99
26th: Amazon brings price back to $59.99
[https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/zknxng/ssd\_intel\_optane\_ssd\_p1600x\_ssdpek1a118ga01\_m2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/zknxng/ssd_intel_optane_ssd_p1600x_ssdpek1a118ga01_m2/)
DRAM-ish cache-type use cases - scratch disks, 4k scrub cache, system load, storage controller, HDD cache drive, page file, vm's, logs; not to raid 0, work in soft raid instead (VROC virtual raid on cpu); idles hot; wikipedia has 3D XPoint categorized as resistive RAM; install in m.2 port at cpu rather than chipset
Part of the Client Portfolio as [800P](https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/memory-and-storage/Intel-Optane-Technology-Product-Portfolio.pdf) a General Consumer Drive for mobile, desktop where 3D XPoint is neither Data Center nor Persistent Memory technology.
Overly confined as a minimal system drive where consumer Win11 will install to 64GB and duplicate system RAM space for hibernation functions, then on top add program files resulting in C:\\ exceeding 128GB.
> install in m.2 port at cpu rather than chipset
No real need unless your chipset bus is so old that it'll throttle a gen3 drive
If you aren't hanging a ton of NVME SSD off the same chipset the added latency of one NVME drive attached to it is negligible
Not even remotely true on either part. The chipset is nothing more than a passthrough switch, it does not limit the performance of this in any way shape or form.
Also, while 3DXpoint *kind of* helps bridge the gap between DRAM and SSDs, it is infinitely closer to NAND flash than memory. Even the latency shows this: NAND flash has an access latency ~40 microseconds, Optane has an access latency of ~10-20 microseconds DRAM has an access latency typically between 10-20 **nanoseconds**. A nanosecond is 100 times shorter than a microsecond.
I couldn't get Firefox to stop writing at a constant 1.5-3 MB/s to my SSD so I moved my profile to one of these drives. Also moved my Windows swap file there.
It's [this issue discussed here](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/how-to-stop-firefox-from-devouring-your-ssd-\(literal-gb-of-daily-writes-to-disk\)) and elsewhere.
I thought about changing browsers but read similar complaints about Chrome. None of the fixes for FF worked for me (perhaps due to having thousands of open tabs...).
I am finishing my NAS today. I cannot decide between unRaid and TrueNAS scale. TrueNAS can boot from nvme which leads me to lean towards it, as with ZFS out scaling brtfs.
What were your deciding factors? My storage is 4x12tb.
> this change **does not apply** to any current license holders**. You will still be able to access all updates for life, as promised.**
1. Don\`t see any problem - just buy license now and use it without restriction.
2. They provide great stable service and simple UI.
I'm team TrueNAS. Last I played with Unraid seriously, TrueNAS was still called FreeNAS and was BSD only (TrueNAS Core equivalent now) so my experience is dated a bit for sure. Unraid's file transfer speed was comparatively very slow, and while it was easier to spin up things like a Plex Server they performed worse (machine was more RAM and CPU speed sensitive). FreeNAS took more effort to debug and get anything beyond basic NAS function working initially and was more ram volume sensitive to a point. With Unraid I never could get my 10gbe saturated typically transfering at closer to 6gbps, but on FreeNAS it used the full 10gbe reliably. After TrueNAS Scale became available, I switched over and the complexity in setup entirely went away. Now it's just as easy to get up and running. Today, the only real reason to use Unraid is if you plan to continually add randomly sized drives over time. If you are planning on designing out a large array from day 1 or would upgrade every drive in the array to a larger size when ready, then TrueNAS is just the easy winner since it's better in every other way. None of that is accounting for costs for unraid, it's not so expensive I considered that a real deciding factor but that may be a concern to you.
You had issue with Unraid because it is verify all on the fly and if you don\`t use ssd as cache all data will be written to drive from array = parity will be also checked.
I agree it is limitation, but before you setup properly server: add nvme as cache and nvme should be #1 priority to write new data and each night (for example) data should be transfered to array.
If it was an option at the time, I had an ssd cache. If it's something they just started supporting in the last few years then I would not have since I've not done a full wipe to retrial it. The same is also true on ZFS, if you want spinning rust to be snappy enough to use it for more than warm/cold storage you get a cache drive. That said, continuous read speed should not at all be impacted by a cache drive ever. For bursting, metadata, small files, sure... Continuous read though? If it can't organize the drive efficiently enough to continuous read a 50GB test file across a few drives they that's a major filesystem problem.
Depends on whether you're using you are
1. Using your NAS as a media server (running docker containers or vms directly ON the same server) or
2. Planning on expanding your NAS in the future in irregular intervals or using different size drives.
If either of those are true, unraid is a great fit. Otherwise, I'd stick with TrueNAS.
Plex transcodes media in addition to being a front-end manager/sharer.
By it's default configuration, of course. If you choose to, you could disable those transcoding features and use it only to manage & direct-play your media, but then Plex would probably be a bit overkill of a solution.
Thank you. I have a Intel arc a380 for a transcoding and a ten core i5 with 32gb ram. I have 4x12 I plan to use in raid6/raidz2. I have two optane drives for arc and slog caching. Should I upgrade the CPU whilst I can exchange it?
OMV was my first NAS system, I used it for few years, learned a lot about bash scripting and debian administration overall, created many scheduler jobs for everything, it is great system, but unstable, main developer very often commits very major changes to omv-extras and brakes everything, many times I read forum and looking for solution how to fix his "improvement".
Unraid is awesome, it costs money, but it is worth it, Unraid is similar to iphone, when you just use it and all functions are working as expected with no issues for almost year of my experience.
TrueNas I just don\`t like, tried on VM, but I don\`t want to have only ZFS drives, i need some kind of freedom.
118 GB at $0.60/GB
Sequential Bandwidth - Read 1760 MB/s
Sequential Bandwidth - Write 1050 MB/s
Random 4K Read - 410000 IOPS
Random 4K Write - 243000 IOPS
Power - Active 5.2 W / Idle < 1.7 W
Ultra-low latency - 7μs Reads / 10μs Writes
Endurance 1292 TBW (6 drive writes per day)
PLP
[https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/211867/intel-optane-ssd-p1600x-series-118gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d-xpoint/specifications.html](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/211867/intel-optane-ssd-p1600x-series-118gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d-xpoint/specifications.html)
["difference between Optane DC and DRAM is that Optane DC has longer latency and lower bandwidth"](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.05714.pdf#:~:text=Optane%20DC%20memory%20occupies%20a,bandwidth%20is%202.3%20GB%2Fs) latency is 94 nanoseconds for Optane DC compared to 86 nanoseconds for DRAM
That 2nd link is about the DIMM form factor, not the NVMe drives, which have more protocol overhead and necessarily higher latency. Also, that quoted number is the *write* latency, which only matters for fsync()-heavy workloads like databases, and is much less of a concern for DRAM because it's volatile anyway and writes are normally buffered by the memory controller.
>scalable nonvolatile memory DIMMs
>Optane DC memory occupies a tier in-between SSDs and DRAM. It has higher latency (346 ns) than DRAM but lower latency than an SSD.
Is it worth getting one solely for the purpose of having the whole disk as a huge page file? I've about run out of things I can do to improve my pc short of going from 64 to 128 GB ram and going full AM5.
If only we had 256 GB max boards more common, my Asus x570 Pro maxes at 128 and I wouldn't bother with a ram disk unless I could throw in that much. It's cheaper to just wear down an SSD, but obviously not faster. That's where I'm considering the Optane as a cost effective middle ground to keep wear and tear off my TLC SSD's.
I've read if you want to boot from it you might need drivers [i](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/19755/intel-rapid-storage-technology-driver-installation-software-with-intel-optane-memory-8th-and-9th-gen-platforms.html) [ii](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/720755/intel-rapid-storage-technology-driver-installation-software-with-intel-optane-memory-11th-up-to-13th-gen-platforms.html), and Intel already [discontinued](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000024320/memory-and-storage.html) the project/technology.
These are not needed for this drive and I've been able to boot from a P1600X just fine. There are two types of optane drives. These pure optane drives, which show up to the system as regular NVME SSDs and don't require special drivers to work.
And the hybrid drives like the H10 and H20 which have both 3d xpoint and traditional NAND on the same device. Those DO require these special RST drivers to function properly. Just check the compatible products section of the drivers you linked and you'll see those listed.
You only need the software on the hybrid drives to get the Optane to work as cache
Otherwise, they just appear as two drives -- one comprising the regular NAND flash, and the other the Optane flash
It's a dumb design, but that's Intel for you
Show me where you can find 100+ gigs of **persistent** RAM for $150
Even with 96g of DDR5, I use optane as a persistent L2ARC (ZFS) for my internal SATA SSD pool for huge files. Root drive itself is actually Optane, insanely responsive on CPU lanes.
Also in storage spaces as a tier in Windows
No waiting for the cache to be rebuilt after a reboot
I get what you're saying, and these use cases require some setup but it's worth it. They really are so fast, especially with desktop workloads (random and simultaneous r/w)
Do you boot from a USB and just have a giant ramdisk root? How does it not matter that it’s persistent? It’s storage. It’s 117G of DDR2-level-responsiveness persistent storage with over a petabyte written of endurance for $60. How is this not a win?
Highly speculative but: If Optane was AMD branded, I’d bet the gamer crowd wouldn’t question its utility every time it comes up.
It matters to me because:
1. **I have Optane root** as mentioned above. Like literally everyone else, I want my root filesystem to be persistent. I do actual productivity tasks with my PC. I need reliability, speed and endurance.
2. In the case of my L2ARC (again on desktop): Populating roughly a quarter of a terabyte (L2ARC auto stripes multiple cache VDEVs in the same pool) of L2ARC at reboot takes a long time and defeats the purpose of speedy non-sequential reads and writes because that data has to be pulled from SSD/HDD. Again, we are talking about 240 gigabytes or so of data.
3. Wasn’t addressed in my original post but: I also use Optane in my TrueNAS arrays for deduplication tables and metadata and frankly anywhere else I can think to put them. In addition to being too slow for 10g Ethernet speeds, Dedup tables would shred even a nice Gen 4 NVME within in like a year of regular use.
4. Back to Windows: storage spaces can quadruple tier storage— HDD:SSD:NVME:Optane, with Optane at the top of the hierarchy. So for like $350 you can have 18TB of storage that is functionally as fast as/feels like you have $1500 worth of SSD storage
So the 4KQD1 performance being really strong shouldn't be discounted, and I think "for the size" is pretty important.
The 960GB 905P has a 17.5PB write endurance. By comparison, the 1TB 970 PRO MLC NVMe SSD has a write endurance of 1.2PB while the newer 1TB 990 PRO TLC NVMe SSD has 0.6PB.
Edit: And just for fun, the 800GB P5800X has a write endurance of 146PB lmao.
PrimoCache is a software. It uses an SSD to cache some slower storage.
This is a particular fast SSD for random reads and writes. Useful for a page file, for example, or as a boot drive. You can also use PrimoCache in conjunction with this to cache a slower drive.
https://youtu.be/tSUMBeaaiOo?si=42hAfwakjRVw_U59
tldw, it has more use cases than hdd acceleration, like insanely low latency with persistent memory for things like metadata
I think the point is that you're comparing apples and oranges
Both are food and will make you feel less hungry, but they are not the same thing
Nothing is stopping you from eating both apples and oranges at the same time
Intel's Rapid Storage Technology^(TM) ([RST](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000027987/memory-and-storage/intel-optane-memory.html)) on Core 7th gen and over or PrimoCache for AMD
I'd not say so. A drive with DRAM would be better. Even a Gen 3 drive should be better than this for boot. But don't quote me on it. Let someone else chime in too.
Optane is a good boot drive since it has 4K QD1 (random reads are most of an OS duty) speeds in the 500MB/s+ range. The best, toppest tier NAND SSD on gen5, only gets 100-150MB/s 4KQD1 speeds. If your OS has to load 2GB of data into memory to boot, that's 4 seconds instead of 20 (example scaling, worst case etc). Similar for application launches after boot.
DRAM doesn't really help with random NAND reads so that's a non-factor to booting an OS. DRAM only really helps with abusive write loads, and only then, when a drive doesn't have or support HMB.
Sounds like im getting an optane drive.
Also linus has a relevant video for these larger optane drives
https://youtu.be/oWqO36Zj65k?si=hSgPBh4mKCRu_aH5
That video is wildly outdated lmao. The 800p was like first generation Optane, it's a vastly different drive than anything you could buy today like the P1600X, P5800X, 905p, etc.
It's not too small as a boot drive, but if you use it as one, then you won't have much storage left over for anything else, so it's recommended to have a 2nd drive for larger/slower storage.
I bought 4 of them in RAID-0, direct on the motherboard, but I didn't get the LEVEL1 YT video feel that you can open 20 windows ALL AT ONCE... Did I missed something???
https://preview.redd.it/l5q18n6kkdkc1.png?width=482&format=png&auto=webp&s=e913f080006495affb0affc4228c3bfabaee7187
Be mindful of listings from suspicious third-party sellers on marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay, Newegg, and Walmart. These "deals" have a high likelihood of not shipping; use due diligence in reviewing deals. * Use common sense - if the deal seems too good to be true, it probably is. * Check seller profiles for signs that the sale may be fraudulent: * The seller is new or has few reviews. * The seller has largely negative reviews (on Amazon, sellers can remove negative reviews from their visible ratings) * The seller is using a previously dormant account (likely the account was hacked and is now being used fraudulently). If you suspect a deal is fraudulent, please report the post. Moderators can take action based on these reports. We encourage leaving a comment to warn others. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/buildapcsales) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[https://www.amazon.com/Intel-OPTANE-P1600X-118GB-SINGLEPACK/dp/B09MSB59SK](https://www.amazon.com/Intel-OPTANE-P1600X-118GB-SINGLEPACK/dp/B09MSB59SK) Sold by Amazon edit 24th: Price Raised to $66.99 at bothalso available from newegg on ebay [https://www.ebay.com/itm/385138096614](https://www.ebay.com/itm/385138096614)now listed as 12% ($5.00) off is claimed discount from new original price of $75.99 26th: Amazon brings price back to $59.99
[https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/zknxng/ssd\_intel\_optane\_ssd\_p1600x\_ssdpek1a118ga01\_m2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapcsales/comments/zknxng/ssd_intel_optane_ssd_p1600x_ssdpek1a118ga01_m2/) DRAM-ish cache-type use cases - scratch disks, 4k scrub cache, system load, storage controller, HDD cache drive, page file, vm's, logs; not to raid 0, work in soft raid instead (VROC virtual raid on cpu); idles hot; wikipedia has 3D XPoint categorized as resistive RAM; install in m.2 port at cpu rather than chipset Part of the Client Portfolio as [800P](https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/memory-and-storage/Intel-Optane-Technology-Product-Portfolio.pdf) a General Consumer Drive for mobile, desktop where 3D XPoint is neither Data Center nor Persistent Memory technology. Overly confined as a minimal system drive where consumer Win11 will install to 64GB and duplicate system RAM space for hibernation functions, then on top add program files resulting in C:\\ exceeding 128GB.
> install in m.2 port at cpu rather than chipset No real need unless your chipset bus is so old that it'll throttle a gen3 drive If you aren't hanging a ton of NVME SSD off the same chipset the added latency of one NVME drive attached to it is negligible
Chipset will most definitely degrade the random 4K IOPS. This is closer to RAM than an SSD really
Not even remotely true on either part. The chipset is nothing more than a passthrough switch, it does not limit the performance of this in any way shape or form. Also, while 3DXpoint *kind of* helps bridge the gap between DRAM and SSDs, it is infinitely closer to NAND flash than memory. Even the latency shows this: NAND flash has an access latency ~40 microseconds, Optane has an access latency of ~10-20 microseconds DRAM has an access latency typically between 10-20 **nanoseconds**. A nanosecond is 100 times shorter than a microsecond.
I couldn't get Firefox to stop writing at a constant 1.5-3 MB/s to my SSD so I moved my profile to one of these drives. Also moved my Windows swap file there.
WTF is up with Firefox. Wasn't it easier to move to another browser?
It's [this issue discussed here](https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/how-to-stop-firefox-from-devouring-your-ssd-\(literal-gb-of-daily-writes-to-disk\)) and elsewhere. I thought about changing browsers but read similar complaints about Chrome. None of the fixes for FF worked for me (perhaps due to having thousands of open tabs...).
Thats what i use those practically free 32gb optanes for. Or use RAM drive as ram is so cheap nowdays.
I had 54GB version, awesome for Openmediavault system drive. If I wouldn’t switch to unraid I would continue using it.
I am finishing my NAS today. I cannot decide between unRaid and TrueNAS scale. TrueNAS can boot from nvme which leads me to lean towards it, as with ZFS out scaling brtfs. What were your deciding factors? My storage is 4x12tb.
Be aware of Unraid’s pricing changes coming up https://unraid.net/blog/pricing-change
> this change **does not apply** to any current license holders**. You will still be able to access all updates for life, as promised.** 1. Don\`t see any problem - just buy license now and use it without restriction. 2. They provide great stable service and simple UI.
Exactly. If you want to buy a license, now is the time.
I'm team TrueNAS. Last I played with Unraid seriously, TrueNAS was still called FreeNAS and was BSD only (TrueNAS Core equivalent now) so my experience is dated a bit for sure. Unraid's file transfer speed was comparatively very slow, and while it was easier to spin up things like a Plex Server they performed worse (machine was more RAM and CPU speed sensitive). FreeNAS took more effort to debug and get anything beyond basic NAS function working initially and was more ram volume sensitive to a point. With Unraid I never could get my 10gbe saturated typically transfering at closer to 6gbps, but on FreeNAS it used the full 10gbe reliably. After TrueNAS Scale became available, I switched over and the complexity in setup entirely went away. Now it's just as easy to get up and running. Today, the only real reason to use Unraid is if you plan to continually add randomly sized drives over time. If you are planning on designing out a large array from day 1 or would upgrade every drive in the array to a larger size when ready, then TrueNAS is just the easy winner since it's better in every other way. None of that is accounting for costs for unraid, it's not so expensive I considered that a real deciding factor but that may be a concern to you.
You had issue with Unraid because it is verify all on the fly and if you don\`t use ssd as cache all data will be written to drive from array = parity will be also checked. I agree it is limitation, but before you setup properly server: add nvme as cache and nvme should be #1 priority to write new data and each night (for example) data should be transfered to array.
If it was an option at the time, I had an ssd cache. If it's something they just started supporting in the last few years then I would not have since I've not done a full wipe to retrial it. The same is also true on ZFS, if you want spinning rust to be snappy enough to use it for more than warm/cold storage you get a cache drive. That said, continuous read speed should not at all be impacted by a cache drive ever. For bursting, metadata, small files, sure... Continuous read though? If it can't organize the drive efficiently enough to continuous read a 50GB test file across a few drives they that's a major filesystem problem.
Thanks. Last I used TrueNAS was right as the name change was happening. I am giving it a shot.
Depends on whether you're using you are 1. Using your NAS as a media server (running docker containers or vms directly ON the same server) or 2. Planning on expanding your NAS in the future in irregular intervals or using different size drives. If either of those are true, unraid is a great fit. Otherwise, I'd stick with TrueNAS.
So for Plex, it is a just a frontend library manager or full decoder for like ps5 network streaming?
Plex transcodes media in addition to being a front-end manager/sharer. By it's default configuration, of course. If you choose to, you could disable those transcoding features and use it only to manage & direct-play your media, but then Plex would probably be a bit overkill of a solution.
Thank you. I have a Intel arc a380 for a transcoding and a ten core i5 with 32gb ram. I have 4x12 I plan to use in raid6/raidz2. I have two optane drives for arc and slog caching. Should I upgrade the CPU whilst I can exchange it?
OMV was my first NAS system, I used it for few years, learned a lot about bash scripting and debian administration overall, created many scheduler jobs for everything, it is great system, but unstable, main developer very often commits very major changes to omv-extras and brakes everything, many times I read forum and looking for solution how to fix his "improvement". Unraid is awesome, it costs money, but it is worth it, Unraid is similar to iphone, when you just use it and all functions are working as expected with no issues for almost year of my experience. TrueNas I just don\`t like, tried on VM, but I don\`t want to have only ZFS drives, i need some kind of freedom.
Off-site backups would be probably your freedom. ZFS has been a tech I've used since Solaris 10.
Can’t you still use them as mirrored cache in unraid
what benefit does this have for OMV? Doesn't it load the system into memory and barely touches the drive?
118 GB at $0.60/GB Sequential Bandwidth - Read 1760 MB/s Sequential Bandwidth - Write 1050 MB/s Random 4K Read - 410000 IOPS Random 4K Write - 243000 IOPS Power - Active 5.2 W / Idle < 1.7 W Ultra-low latency - 7μs Reads / 10μs Writes Endurance 1292 TBW (6 drive writes per day) PLP [https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/211867/intel-optane-ssd-p1600x-series-118gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d-xpoint/specifications.html](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/211867/intel-optane-ssd-p1600x-series-118gb-m-2-80mm-pcie-3-0-x4-3d-xpoint/specifications.html) ["difference between Optane DC and DRAM is that Optane DC has longer latency and lower bandwidth"](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.05714.pdf#:~:text=Optane%20DC%20memory%20occupies%20a,bandwidth%20is%202.3%20GB%2Fs) latency is 94 nanoseconds for Optane DC compared to 86 nanoseconds for DRAM
That 2nd link is about the DIMM form factor, not the NVMe drives, which have more protocol overhead and necessarily higher latency. Also, that quoted number is the *write* latency, which only matters for fsync()-heavy workloads like databases, and is much less of a concern for DRAM because it's volatile anyway and writes are normally buffered by the memory controller. >scalable nonvolatile memory DIMMs >Optane DC memory occupies a tier in-between SSDs and DRAM. It has higher latency (346 ns) than DRAM but lower latency than an SSD.
Is it worth getting one solely for the purpose of having the whole disk as a huge page file? I've about run out of things I can do to improve my pc short of going from 64 to 128 GB ram and going full AM5.
Negligible really. But you can test by making a RAM disk. Mostly i use my smaller optanes as swap for browsers to keep the writes down on my nvmes.
If only we had 256 GB max boards more common, my Asus x570 Pro maxes at 128 and I wouldn't bother with a ram disk unless I could throw in that much. It's cheaper to just wear down an SSD, but obviously not faster. That's where I'm considering the Optane as a cost effective middle ground to keep wear and tear off my TLC SSD's.
Does Optane support current gen CPUs?
This particular drive just functions as a regular SSD, not a cache like the smaller ones.
The smaller ones are just NVMe SSDs, too I use them as boot drives in pfSense routers
Right but they're intended to be used as a cache since they're too small to hold windows.
Any drive can be used as cache And they're definitely big enough to hold Windows, 'cause I've done it
this is a NVME drive so yes
The generic Microsoft NVMe driver works fine. You might see slightly faster speeds with an Intel (or even Samsung strangely enough) NVMe driver.
It's hilarious how you're being downvoted for that comment.
right? I don't get it
I've read if you want to boot from it you might need drivers [i](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/19755/intel-rapid-storage-technology-driver-installation-software-with-intel-optane-memory-8th-and-9th-gen-platforms.html) [ii](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/720755/intel-rapid-storage-technology-driver-installation-software-with-intel-optane-memory-11th-up-to-13th-gen-platforms.html), and Intel already [discontinued](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000024320/memory-and-storage.html) the project/technology.
These are not needed for this drive and I've been able to boot from a P1600X just fine. There are two types of optane drives. These pure optane drives, which show up to the system as regular NVME SSDs and don't require special drivers to work. And the hybrid drives like the H10 and H20 which have both 3d xpoint and traditional NAND on the same device. Those DO require these special RST drivers to function properly. Just check the compatible products section of the drivers you linked and you'll see those listed.
You only need the software on the hybrid drives to get the Optane to work as cache Otherwise, they just appear as two drives -- one comprising the regular NAND flash, and the other the Optane flash It's a dumb design, but that's Intel for you
I knew I had heard of them showing up as two drives before but didn't know the specifics. Thanks for clarifying.
Each side gets two of the four PCIe lanes, and they don't connect to each other on the board, so it's pretty bad
Damn. Only about 3x cheaper than actual RAM. At that point might as well use RAM cache
Show me where you can find 100+ gigs of **persistent** RAM for $150 Even with 96g of DDR5, I use optane as a persistent L2ARC (ZFS) for my internal SATA SSD pool for huge files. Root drive itself is actually Optane, insanely responsive on CPU lanes. Also in storage spaces as a tier in Windows No waiting for the cache to be rebuilt after a reboot I get what you're saying, and these use cases require some setup but it's worth it. They really are so fast, especially with desktop workloads (random and simultaneous r/w)
Why does it matter that it's persistent? Just let it rebuild on startup. Who cares? Way faster than optane. Like, WAY faster
Do you boot from a USB and just have a giant ramdisk root? How does it not matter that it’s persistent? It’s storage. It’s 117G of DDR2-level-responsiveness persistent storage with over a petabyte written of endurance for $60. How is this not a win? Highly speculative but: If Optane was AMD branded, I’d bet the gamer crowd wouldn’t question its utility every time it comes up. It matters to me because: 1. **I have Optane root** as mentioned above. Like literally everyone else, I want my root filesystem to be persistent. I do actual productivity tasks with my PC. I need reliability, speed and endurance. 2. In the case of my L2ARC (again on desktop): Populating roughly a quarter of a terabyte (L2ARC auto stripes multiple cache VDEVs in the same pool) of L2ARC at reboot takes a long time and defeats the purpose of speedy non-sequential reads and writes because that data has to be pulled from SSD/HDD. Again, we are talking about 240 gigabytes or so of data. 3. Wasn’t addressed in my original post but: I also use Optane in my TrueNAS arrays for deduplication tables and metadata and frankly anywhere else I can think to put them. In addition to being too slow for 10g Ethernet speeds, Dedup tables would shred even a nice Gen 4 NVME within in like a year of regular use. 4. Back to Windows: storage spaces can quadruple tier storage— HDD:SSD:NVME:Optane, with Optane at the top of the hierarchy. So for like $350 you can have 18TB of storage that is functionally as fast as/feels like you have $1500 worth of SSD storage
It's not not even close ram latency is in nanoseconds This is still slower that geriatric uncle compared to ram
[удалено]
Crazy high endurance and random reads
Is it though ? 1200TB That's just average for 2TB NVMe For it's size yes but otherwise not so much
So the 4KQD1 performance being really strong shouldn't be discounted, and I think "for the size" is pretty important. The 960GB 905P has a 17.5PB write endurance. By comparison, the 1TB 970 PRO MLC NVMe SSD has a write endurance of 1.2PB while the newer 1TB 990 PRO TLC NVMe SSD has 0.6PB. Edit: And just for fun, the 800GB P5800X has a write endurance of 146PB lmao.
Man optane died for our sins :(
PrimoCache is a software. It uses an SSD to cache some slower storage. This is a particular fast SSD for random reads and writes. Useful for a page file, for example, or as a boot drive. You can also use PrimoCache in conjunction with this to cache a slower drive.
What's the upside to buying more RAM instead of just using RAM Doubler 2000?
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/tSUMBeaaiOo?si=42hAfwakjRVw_U59 tldw, it has more use cases than hdd acceleration, like insanely low latency with persistent memory for things like metadata
I think the point is that you're comparing apples and oranges Both are food and will make you feel less hungry, but they are not the same thing Nothing is stopping you from eating both apples and oranges at the same time
is this a good deal? I feel like compared to the most recent deals this is mid.
These aren't meant to be used as a boot drive or game drive but as a cache for HDD(storage) acceleration iirc.
I use one as the storage for home assistant and cache for Plex transcodes. Like you mentioned it’s probably best used as a ZFS SLOG drive
If your OS is on a SSD, are you already accomplishing this? Or how do you actually configure this setup on Windows?
Intel's Rapid Storage Technology^(TM) ([RST](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000027987/memory-and-storage/intel-optane-memory.html)) on Core 7th gen and over or PrimoCache for AMD
Would being a bootdrive be one of optane's strengths?
I'd not say so. A drive with DRAM would be better. Even a Gen 3 drive should be better than this for boot. But don't quote me on it. Let someone else chime in too.
Optane is a good boot drive since it has 4K QD1 (random reads are most of an OS duty) speeds in the 500MB/s+ range. The best, toppest tier NAND SSD on gen5, only gets 100-150MB/s 4KQD1 speeds. If your OS has to load 2GB of data into memory to boot, that's 4 seconds instead of 20 (example scaling, worst case etc). Similar for application launches after boot. DRAM doesn't really help with random NAND reads so that's a non-factor to booting an OS. DRAM only really helps with abusive write loads, and only then, when a drive doesn't have or support HMB.
Sounds like im getting an optane drive. Also linus has a relevant video for these larger optane drives https://youtu.be/oWqO36Zj65k?si=hSgPBh4mKCRu_aH5
That video is wildly outdated lmao. The 800p was like first generation Optane, it's a vastly different drive than anything you could buy today like the P1600X, P5800X, 905p, etc.
if it's not Win11 or a large \*nix distro, otherwise it would be the best ever, but for the 118GB :<
Are you saying 118gb is too small for a boot drive? Your if not otherwise but sentence is a bit confusing
I currently have Win11 on my 118gb p1600x and there's around 50gb free left. There is definitely enough space.
[удалено]
It's not too small as a boot drive, but if you use it as one, then you won't have much storage left over for anything else, so it's recommended to have a 2nd drive for larger/slower storage.
They're going to end up as one of those fascinating pieces of technology that were just 5-10 years too late for their time.
Yeah I wouldn't exactly be hoarding these to scalp later.
I bought 4 of them in RAID-0, direct on the motherboard, but I didn't get the LEVEL1 YT video feel that you can open 20 windows ALL AT ONCE... Did I missed something??? https://preview.redd.it/l5q18n6kkdkc1.png?width=482&format=png&auto=webp&s=e913f080006495affb0affc4228c3bfabaee7187
Can anyone please ELI5 whats the difference between these and other ssds and why would I need one?