anandtech Intel Optane cache drive - 1st impressions

[zMeul]

source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11210/the-intel-optane-memory-ssd-review-32gb-of-kaby-lake-caching

Quote

As a cache device, the Optane Memory brought a hard drive-based system's SYSmark scores up to the level of mainstream SSDs. These averages do not capture differences in the latency distributions of the Optane cache+hard drive configuration vs a flash SSD. In the Optane+hard drive configuration, a cache hit will be almost 1000 times faster than a cache miss, resulting in a very bimodal distribution. The flash SSDs mostly occupy the territory between the performance of Optane and of the hard drive. It's possible that a mainstream flash SSD could deliver a user experience with fewer noticeable delays than the Optane caching experience with the occasional inevitable cache miss. Overall, however, the Optane cache delivers a remarkable improvement over just a hard drive, and the 32GB cache capacity we tested is clearly large enough to be of substantial use.

 

this looks like it's the 1st time, Intel delivers compelling caching

Anand'd engineering sample did not survive the 1st day of testing, but they were able to get some interesting results with BAPCo SYSmark:

Spoiler

 

 

further testing needs to be done, but the initial impressions are quite remarkable - if a 32GB Optane cache drive can mimic the performance of a mainstream NVMe drive, the future looks bright

the future looks bright especially for laptops

 

---

 

PCPer has their own review: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Optane-Memory-32GB-Review-Faster-Lightning

Quote

We tried to go a bit heavy on some of the operations we attempted to really push the Optane Memory system as a whole. The general consensus is as follows:

• SATA HDD speeds are brought to match SATA SSD speeds.
• SATA SSD speeds are in some (few) cases accelerated even further.

Yes, you read that right, SATA SSDs can be accelerated by Optane Memory and in some cases the end result beats even an NVMe SSD (in this case, the 960 EVO!).

Spoiler

Quote

Final Thoughts:

 

I knew XPoint was going to enable all sorts of performance gains to storage systems, but I honestly did not expect Optane Memory to net such large benefits and to do it so well. While previous hybrid/caching technologies have been decent, the outstanding latency of XPoint enables an Optane Memory cache to boost HDD systems to meet or even exceed the performance of NAND-SSD equipped machines! While the intended market is clearly as an upgrade to HDD-only systems, measurable benefits can be seen even when caching a SATA SSD. When paired with a budget SATA SSD, we saw boot times cut in half and coming in nearly a second faster than a NAND-NVMe SSD! Overall I am extremely impressed with the performance benefits and implementation of Optane Memory.

 

Edited April 24, 2017 by zMeul

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

Umm, so I no longer need to dedicate swap space on my drives anymore? 

 

Or on second thought, have Optane as my dedicated swap disk for all my OS installations???

[zMeul]

4 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

Umm, so I no longer need to dedicate swap space on my drives anymore? 

 

Or on second thought, have Optane as my dedicated swap disk for all my OS installations???

swap space?! you thinking of Linux?!!?!?

for now, don't think this drive cache works on Linux

 

also ... since the latest Ubuntu, 17.04, swap partition is gone and replaced with a swap file like Windows does

[FPSwithaWacomTablet]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

swap space?! you thinking of Linux?!!?!?

for now, don't think this drive cache works on Linux

 

also ... since the latest Ubuntu, 17.04, swap partition is gone and replaced with a swap file like Windows does

Yup, I'm still the guy who plays with partitions on my laptop  

 

Also I'm still on 16.04, I do hope the swap thing with 17.04 is more consistent so that my laptop ACTUALLY closes properly. Instead of having to type

 

sudo pm-hibernate

Either that, or I just suck at finding out how my laptop works. 

[2FA]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

also ... since the latest Ubuntu, 17.04, swap partition is gone and replaced with a swap file like Windows does

Linux has supported a swap file since at least 2006, some distros just kept using a partition instead. Arch has already supported it as well as RHEL and its derivatives.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Part of me isn't really surprised about the results. Run a storage benchmark enough times, the caching algorithm will store the test file the benchmark programs use in it. This aligns with the thought that the more you access something, the closer it approaches cache speed. But that's the thing: caching only does its magic if you constantly access something.

 

I'm not trying to knock on the technology though. I do think that the SSD + HDD setup can be a pain in the butt for some people. Developers complained about having two disjointed memory pools in consoles, so I would imagine the layman doesn't like having to manage two separate pools of storage. If this can get them SSD speeds while managing only one storage pool, that's a good thing.

 

It's also why I think Apple's Fusion drive is a great implementation of hybrid tech.

 

6 minutes ago, FPSwithaWacomTablet said:

Umm, so I no longer need to dedicate swap space on my drives anymore? 

 

Or on second thought, have Optane as my dedicated swap disk for all my OS installations???

Unless you're constantly running out of RAM, the computer shouldn't really be touching the swap file. For most people, having a page/swap file is just there for 1. as a buffer so that you don't run out of virtual memory vs. real memory and 2. programs may complain about the lack of it.

[zMeul]

10 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Part of me isn't really surprised about the results. Run a storage benchmark enough times, the caching algorithm will store the test file the benchmark programs use in it. This aligns with the thought that the more you access something, the closer it approaches cache speed. But that's the thing: caching only does its magic if you constantly access something.

here's the thing: at 32GB, the cache can completely cover a base Windows install

[zMeul]

PCPer has their own review: https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Optane-Memory-32GB-Review-Faster-Lightning

Quote

We tried to go a bit heavy on some of the operations we attempted to really push the Optane Memory system as a whole. The general consensus is as follows:

• SATA HDD speeds are brought to match SATA SSD speeds.
• SATA SSD speeds are in some (few) cases accelerated even further.

Yes, you read that right, SATA SSDs can be accelerated by Optane Memory and in some cases the end result beats even an NVMe SSD (in this case, the 960 EVO!).

Spoiler

Quote

Final Thoughts:

I knew XPoint was going to enable all sorts of performance gains to storage systems, but I honestly did not expect Optane Memory to net such large benefits and to do it so well. While previous hybrid/caching technologies have been decent, the outstanding latency of XPoint enables an Optane Memory cache to boost HDD systems to meet or even exceed the performance of NAND-SSD equipped machines! While the intended market is clearly as an upgrade to HDD-only systems, measurable benefits can be seen even when caching a SATA SSD. When paired with a budget SATA SSD, we saw boot times cut in half and coming in nearly a second faster than a NAND-NVMe SSD! Overall I am extremely impressed with the performance benefits and implementation of Optane Memory.

 

[MageTank]

I still don't get the need for this. Laptops with limited amounts of ram and storage interfaces, sure, I understand it's usefulness, but for most users with a desktop, it would be just as easy (and faster in every regard) to cache your spinners with ram, or a partition of your SSD's. With modern platforms supporting 64GB of ram with ease, one could easily dedicate 32-48GB of ram to this task, and still have plenty of ram left over for their normal consumer-level tasks. Plenty of free (and non-free) software to do this too. Get a large array of disks, use something like Primocache to cache your spinners with an SSD, and then use your ram disk to defer writing on the SSD's to help improve their lifespan. Win-Win.

 

For now, I am just not impressed enough to buy an Optane drive. The laptops that I do intend to use, already have multiple 2.5 inch bays and multiple PCIe M.2 slots. So to me, the biggest "need" scenario for these drives, are ultra-thins with their soldered ram and extremely limited storage solutions.

[The Benjamins]

Lol it is funny how it is said to last longer then a SSD but anantech sample died after a day.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Lol it is funny how it is said to last longer then a SSD but anantech sample died after a day.

you are assuming facts not in evidence

there could be a shit ton of factors that lead to that drive's demise

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I still don't get the need for this. Laptops with limited amounts of ram and storage interfaces, sure, I understand it's usefulness, but for most users with a desktop, it would be just as easy (and faster in every regard) to cache your spinners with ram, or a partition of your SSD's. With modern platforms supporting 64GB of ram with ease, one could easily dedicate 32-48GB of ram to this task, and still have plenty of ram left over for their normal consumer-level tasks. Plenty of free (and non-free) software to do this too. Get a large array of disks, use something like Primocache to cache your spinners with an SSD, and then use your ram disk to defer writing on the SSD's to help improve their lifespan. Win-Win.

RAM disk ... you do with RAM disk what!?!?!? limit your RAM capacity

if you have a lot of RAM you can disable Page File

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you are assuming facts not in evidence

there could be a shit ton of factors that lead to that drive's demise

I just said I think it is funny. I don't think it indicates that it will not last, or is a bad product. just ironic. and it is a bit of bad PR when a reviews sample has issues.

 

Looks like a cool product but it needs a Kadylake or newer CPU correct?

also not a big need for me I already only run SSD's in my systems.

[FakeNSA]

3 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you are assuming facts not in evidence

there could be a shit ton of factors that lead to that drive's demise

Such as....

[MageTank]

Just now, zMeul said:

RAM disk ... you do with RAM disk what!?!?!? limit your RAM capacity

if you have a lot of RAM you can disable Page File

No, I do exactly what I said I do with it.

 

10 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I still don't get the need for this. Laptops with limited amounts of ram and storage interfaces, sure, I understand it's usefulness, but for most users with a desktop, it would be just as easy (and faster in every regard) to cache your spinners with ram, or a partition of your SSD's. With modern platforms supporting 64GB of ram with ease, one could easily dedicate 32-48GB of ram to this task, and still have plenty of ram left over for their normal consumer-level tasks. Plenty of free (and non-free) software to do this too. Get a large array of disks, use something like Primocache to cache your spinners with an SSD, and then use your ram disk to defer writing on the SSD's to help improve their lifespan. Win-Win.

 

For now, I am just not impressed enough to buy an Optane drive. The laptops that I do intend to use, already have multiple 2.5 inch bays and multiple PCIe M.2 slots. So to me, the biggest "need" scenario for these drives, are ultra-thins with their soldered ram and extremely limited storage solutions.

I like not having my SSD written to repeatedly with the most mundane data. Having that be written to ram temporarily instead, prolongs the lifespan. I mean, I don't even use 8GB of ram half the time (Except ME:A which uses 12GB for some odd reason), so having a 20GB ram-disk dedicated to deferring writes from my SSD's is a no-brainer to me. Better than having my redundantly fast ram sitting about doing nothing. 

[Shakaza]

26 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I still don't get the need for this. Laptops with limited amounts of ram and storage interfaces, sure, I understand it's usefulness, but for most users with a desktop, it would be just as easy (and faster in every regard) to cache your spinners with ram, or a partition of your SSD's. With modern platforms supporting 64GB of ram with ease, one could easily dedicate 32-48GB of ram to this task, and still have plenty of ram left over for their normal consumer-level tasks. Plenty of free (and non-free) software to do this too. Get a large array of disks, use something like Primocache to cache your spinners with an SSD, and then use your ram disk to defer writing on the SSD's to help improve their lifespan. Win-Win.

 

For now, I am just not impressed enough to buy an Optane drive. The laptops that I do intend to use, already have multiple 2.5 inch bays and multiple PCIe M.2 slots. So to me, the biggest "need" scenario for these drives, are ultra-thins with their soldered ram and extremely limited storage solutions.

Couldn't cost be a factor? Say you want a lot of fast storage, but you don't want to spend a lot on a, 1 TB SSD, for example. You could buy a 1 TB HDD and get one of these bad boys and get similar performance for a much lower price. The 32 GB cache drive + a 1 TB HDD would set you back around $127 USD, whereas a 1 TB SSD would set you back $250 or more. If cost isn't really a factor for you and you just care about blazing fast performance, like a lot of enthusiasts, then sure, I'd say this doesn't make a lot of sense. For people like my dad, however, he needs a lot of storage for archival purposes, but he doesn't want to spend a lot because he's paying for two kids going to college. He could still afford SSDs, but I may have recommended this to him if it was available at the time and he had a Kaby Lake system. I still think that's a bit restrictive.

[Coaxialgamer]

What's interesting is the potential of this tech.

Many call it disappointing because it doesn't significantly outperform an nvme flash drive. But what they don't realize is that modern flash drives uses a significant amount of flash dies in parallel to achieve these speeds ( one of the reasons bigger drives often mean faster speeds). Optane achieves these results with only a couple of dies at best, and has far better latency. Once production starts ramping up and the tech matures, it could get quite interesting indeed. 

[Soonercoop]

This stuff is very compelling for systems I am not willing to use SSD drives in due to lack of funds or lack of ability in my customers to handle multiple drives. Optane makes the future of hard drives much brighter than it seemed when the price of solid state started going down.

[Soonercoop]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

So its used as cache for mechanical drive. 

 

How much it gonna cost again? Would be kind of pointless if we end up having to pay more than an NVME drive... for a mechanical drive with cache. 

It's really cheap for what it is. I think $45 for the 16gb model and the price will likely go down in the coming years.

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

So its used as cache for mechanical drive. 

 

How much it gonna cost again? Would be kind of pointless if we end up having to pay more than an NVME drive... for a mechanical drive with cache. 

the 32GB is 77$ but the total cost is way less than a NVMe drive / GB

 

a 1TB WD Black is ~70$ + 77 Optane = ~150$

for 150$ you'll get a 256GB NVMe SSD

[The Benjamins]

38 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the 32GB is 77$ but the total cost is way less than a NVMe drive / GB

 

a 1TB WD Black is ~70$ + 77 Optane = ~150$

for 150$ you'll get a 256GB NVMe SSD

I feel NVMe drives are not need, so $150 could also get you a 500GB Sata SSD.

[zMeul]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

I feel NVMe drives are not need, so $150 could also get you a 500GB Sata SSD.

still not a 1TB drive

[Bcat00]

Am i misreading his post or did he say he broke it on the first day?

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

still not a 1TB drive

True, but I personally still see most business not needing more then 200-400GB. and for gamers they can add a HDD down the road when the SSD is getting full.

 

I think it is a cool product, but it is kinda in a odd spot. They only use I see is some one building a budget PC that needs a lot of space now but still want's SSD like performance.

[zMeul]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

True, but I personally still see most business not needing more then 200-400GB. and for gamers they can add a HDD down the road when the SSD is getting full.

 

I think it is a cool product, but it is kinda in a odd spot. They only use I see is some one building a budget PC that needs a lot of space now but still want's SSD like performance.

this isn't particularly aimed at desktop, sure they can use it

it's aimed at laptops - and it's a match made in heaven for them