Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Enmotus isn't a commonly known company among gamers, but that might change with Fuzedrive, an SLC-infused SSD that claims to have "AI"...

 

 

Buy Enmotus FuzeDrive 1.6TB SSD (PAID LINK): https://geni.us/DETLLGS

Anthony @ LINUS MEDIA GROUP             

I'm a handsome man with a charming personality. - Gabe Newell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Daum. 

I will recommend an NHu12s (or an NHd15 (maybe)) for your PC build. Quote or @ me @Prodigy_Smit for me to see your replies.

PSU Teir List | Howdy! A Windows Hello Alternative 

 

 

Desktop :

i7 8700 | Quadro P4000 8GB |  64gb 2933Mhz cl18 | 500 GB Samsung 960 Pro | 1tb SSD Samsung 850 evo

Laptop :

Legion y520 | i5 7300hq | 1050 4gb (Manual OC) | 16gb 2400Mhz cl18 | 256 GB SSD | 2tb HDD

Server:

Xeon E3 1245 | 16gb ECC ram | 256 GB SSD | 2*2tb HDD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey where can I get that software that Linus used to combine the SSD and the hard drive?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

Will it work for my MSI laptop with a 1 TB crucial SSD and a 1 TB hard drive or do I need the fuse drive SSD? Also the cheapest one should work for my 2 TB of storage right? And will it delete my data on the hard drive when I combine them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AndrewM148 said:

Will it work for my MSI laptop with a 1 TB crucial SSD or do I need the fuse drive?

It'll work with every SSD. After all, AMD's StoreMI is based on it and this SSD didn't exist back then, the FuseDrive software on the other hand is quite a bit older.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Benji said:

It'll work with every SSD. After all, AMD's StoreMI is based on it and this SSD didn't exist back then, the FuseDrive software on the other hand is quite a bit older.

I have a MSI GF63 8RD with an i7 and 1 TB SSD and 1 TB HDD also. Will the cheapest one work for my 2 TB of storage? And will it delete my data on the hard drive when I combine them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AndrewM148 said:

I have a MSI GF63 8RD with an i7 and 1 TB SSD and 1 TB HDD also. Will the cheapest one work for my 2 TB of storage? And will it delete my data on the hard drive when I combine them?

Did you even look at the link that @Den-Fi posted? That makes it very apparent that the largest fast (SSD; accelerator) drive in the lowest package can only be up to 256GB in size. If you want 1TB, you'll need to pony up to the mid-tier at least. That's also why they're called FuzeDrive 256, FuzeDrive 1000 and FuzeDrive XL (which supports up to 32TB of general storage across the 2-storage-medium tier in either SSD or HDD). But the medium tier should be sufficient. As to it deleting data on the secondary, to-be-accelerated drive? IIRC no, but I wouldn't take any chances. Enabling and disabling Intel's own Optane software also won't format the drive that is to be accelerated. It'll keep the data IIRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Benji said:

Did you even look at the link that @Den-Fi posted? That makes it very apparent that the largest fast (SSD; accelerator) drive in the lowest package can only be up to 256GB in size. If you want 1TB, you'll need to pony up to the mid-tier at least. That's also why they're called FuzeDrive 256, FuzeDrive 1000 and FuzeDrive XL (which supports up to 32TB of general storage across the 2-storage-medium tier in either SSD or HDD.) But the medium tier should be sufficient. As to it deleting data on the secondary, to-be-accelerated drive? IIRC no, but I wouldn't take any chances. Enabling and disabling Intel's own Optane software also won't format the drive that is to be accelerated. It'll keep the data IIRC.

Ok thanks. Didn't see the sizes and didn't catch on to the naming scheme. What does IIRC mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be great as a boot drive as Windows tends to write a lot of data to the drive, but not at this price. You could get 2 similar drives for the price of one of these.

05Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 1 (USB 3.0)

10Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2

20Gb/s - USB 3.2 Gen 2x2

40Gb/s - USB 4.0, Thunderbolt 3, Thunderbolt 4

 

Some Wallpapers I created

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AndrewM148 said:

What does IIRC mean?

Irecall correctly.

14 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

This would be great as a boot drive as Windows tends to write a lot of data to the drive, but not at this price. You could get 2 similar drives for the price of one of these.

Pretty much this. Also the "innovative" use of a fixed SLC cache. It will be only marginally better than the current adaptive SLC cache and, as was already said in the video, it basically seems to be marketing at it's best but not something actually relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to write endurance on Flash media.

The "endurance" is actually a very very fuzzy gray line.

 

The flash cell stores a charge in a floating gate, but the charge stuffed into it can actually escape over time, all though very slowly.

Each write and erase cycle will force electrons (ie charge) through the insulation surrounding our floating gate. Each time this is done, our insulation has a tendency to weaken, making it slightly worse at its job.

 

Elevating the temperature during writes will help the insulation to not wear out as much, and honestly, heating the flash cell to 120+ degrees C for a few seconds can even aneal the insulation and restore some life to it. But DO NOT bake your SSDs in the oven, the BGA interface doesn't like it, nor does the PCB the chips are on, or the caps on it among other components... (But some Flash manufacturers have been looking at integrating heaters in the flash array itself, doing very localized heating for each write.)

 

Keeping the drive cold on the other hand will ensure that the leakage through the insulation gets smaller, extending its data retention time by sometimes a fair bit. But this isn't always practical. (To a degree, having a peltier element on an SSD would be logical, then one could heat it before each write and then cool it back down for storage, but this would be wildly impractical since it would need time to heat the thing up, making for a very high latency.)

 

Now, Flash cells have a data retention period that is typically in the few years region. (One can quote Microchip's "20 year retention at 85 degrees C" Flash used in their microcontrollers, but this is honestly built for excellent long term data retention, not price/GB. Ie, Microchip's Flash is expensive as hell in comparison, but a micro only needs a few kB of it.)

But with each write, our data retention time drops a little bit, eventually it reaches a point where our manufacturer doesn't regard it to be in spec.

It still works, just forgets too fast if one asks the manufacturer about it. For caching and scratch disk applications where the data doesn't linger for as long, then we can technically abuse the drive far harder than if it were our primary storage. (and we can always check back with the primary storage to see that our data is still intact and hasn't rotted away due to this leakage.)

 

This means that Fuzedrive's statement that they can make it last 3x longer than Samsung guarantees isn't actually weird.

Samsung likely bases their number on a 3-8 year data retention time, maybe longer, since it is intended as primary storage.


Also, to end it all, don't put flash drives in time capsules.... They will be empty when they are retrieved, especially after a few hundred years. (Though, here one can debate if the data on them is even discernable by then...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I frankly don't get the point of this thing. PrimoCache had this for ages and yet I'm the only one constantly mentioning it like I'm some sort of shill, but I don't have any affiliation with them, I was just so amazed by their software. PrimoCache also makes only primary drive visible. Cache drive is not visible. Early versions only had read cache, but latest versions also have write cache including deferred write with several different methods. You can have L1 and L2 cache. It can act as write through and clears content after write or it leaves it if needed later. It can ingress write to RAM, then tier it down to SSD and lastly to HDD and retain the data until absolutely needed to be discarded from either level. PrimoCache can also operate as pure read only cache so it'll use SSD cache to speed up reads, but all writes go directly to HDD.

 

At least FuzeDrive software is comparable to PrimoCache price wise so I don't have any objections there. It's also much more friendly to use this time around than when it was still called StoreMI. The way it operated back then was terrible and it was actually volatile. Losing cache meant you also lost all primary data and that's terrible. PrimoCache, if cache drive fails, you just fall back to slow speeds of primary HDD. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore with FuzeDrive, but I haven't tried it myself yet.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X | ASUS Strix X570-E | G.Skill 32GB 3733MHz CL16 | PALIT RTX 3080 10GB GamingPro | Samsung 850 Pro 2TB | Seagate Barracuda 8TB | Sound Blaster AE-9 MUSES

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all of those who want not 1, not 2, but 1.6 TB of storage!

Sorry for the mess!  My laptop just went ROG!

"THE ROGUE":  ASUS ROG Zephyrus G15 GA503QR (2021)

  • Ryzen 9 5900HS
  • RTX 3070 Laptop GPU (80W)
  • 16GB DDR4-3200
  • 1TB SK Hynix NVMe (boot) + 2TB Crucial P2 NVMe (games)
  • 90Wh battery + 200W power brick
  • 15.6" 1440p 165Hz IPS Pantone display
  • Logitech G603 mouse + Logitech G533 headset

"Hex": Dell G7 7588 (2018)

  • i7-8750H
  • GTX 1060 Max-Q
  • 16GB DDR4-2666
  • 1TB Crucial P1 NVMe (boot) + 2TB Crucial MX500 SATA (games)
  • 56Wh battery + 180W power brick
  • 15.6" 1080p 60Hz IPS display
  • Corsair Harpoon Wireless mouse + Corsair HS70 headset

Other tech: Apple iPhone XR 256GB in Product(RED), Sennheiser HD4.40BT, OontZ Angle 3 Ultra, Logitech G203 Prodigy (not in use), Cooler Master Devastator II (just the keyboard; not in use)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A while back you could get a 118GB Optane drive off ebay for something like $78. THOSE were the great caching drives. Much better endurance than SLC NAND and better IOPS/consistency.

 

Budget TLC drive + Optane = similarish price to this. 

R9 3900x; 64GB RAM | RTX 2080 | 1.5TB Optane P4800x

1TB ADATA XPG Pro 8200 SSD | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD
HD800 + SCHIIT VALI | Topre Realforce Keyboard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved the intro by the way!

"We're all in this together, might as well be friends" Tom, Toonami.

Sorry if my post seemed rude, that is never my intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I purchased 2 14TB HDD's for a RAID 1 NAS. I was looking to get an SSD for caching it and improving write/read times. Would this be a feasible and good use case? Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDJr said:

I purchased 2 14TB HDD's for a RAID 1 NAS. I was looking to get an SSD for caching it and improving write/read times. Would this be a feasible and good use case? Thanks.

image.png.db1b349bbc5934d991e9b954b1a6652b.png

I guess the answer officially from FuzeDrive is no at the moment.

https://www.enmotus.com/fuzedrive-faq

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JDJr said:

I purchased 2 14TB HDD's for a RAID 1 NAS. I was looking to get an SSD for caching it and improving write/read times. Would this be a feasible and good use case? Thanks.

I'm going to go a bit overboard here this is kind of conceptual

 

This will depend on a number of things. 

1. What other hardware do you have? Is your NAS a monster with a bunch of RAM running ZFS or Bcache? Is it a budget system with a weak ARM CPU and barely any RAM? How fast is your networking? If you're using gigabit LAN then PEAK cache performance won't matter tons. 

2. How much of your data is hot? If 90% of your data at any one time is basically never touched (backup only) but 10% is VERY actively used then you can get by with less cache than if you have a much more mixed usage. The larger the active set size or the less constant usage patterns are the more size matters. 

3. How much do you value throughput vs latency?

 

I'm a fan of optane for caching but it needs to be at the right price. 

 

In the ZFS world the basic idea is get just about everything running on RAM. The more RAM the better. 64GB RAM = 50-99% of your reads coming off RAM. SSD caches are for either temporary write buffers (SLOG) or for an extra copy of disk contents that don't fit in the RAM (with the caveat being that using an SSD cache eats up RAM - 2TB SSD means you need TONS of RAM to use the full 2TB, the cache might even hurt since you have less RAM). 

 

One other thing to add - do you even NEED a cache? Can you get away with placing the hot data on an SSD and then just backing it up to the HDDs? This is a VERY underrated approach. 

 

 

https://www.qnap.com.cn/solution/ssd-cache/uk-ua/

If you have a budget NAS, caching will be limited to some degree. If you only have ~1GB in the system, I'd keep the cache to 256-512GB. 

---

 

 

 

From a strategy perspective I'd consider 3 approaches
1. You have a small amount of data that REALLY needs performance - max out RAM, don't worry about an SSD cache. Disable RAM caching on shares that have non performance sensitive data. This is not an option on a budget NAS.

 

2. You have a moderate amount of data that is latency sensitive - get a high performance cache (good use case for optane - I miss the $78 for 118GB ebay pricing, consider scouring craigslist or similar). This is good for "mixed use". Endurance of the cache drive matters.3. You have a lot of data that needs to be streamed, responsiveness doesn't matter much, just the ability to move lots of data. Get a large, budget-oriented SSD. Be aware this requires a moderate amount of RAM and is inadvisable for budget NASes. Avoid QLC for this. Newer TLC drives at a minimum though older MLC could also work. 


4. You have a lot of data that needs OK performance - separate SSD and HDD pools, no/minimal cache. One SSD that's automatically backed up to the HDDs works reasonably well. This has the benefit of avoiding caching overhead. 

 

 

A lot of home lab people buy refurbished server drives (Intel usually) for cache drives. Caching eats up drive lifespan very quickly compared to normal SSD use. It's not uncommon for someone to buy a 1TB enterprise SSD and to only provision 500GB for caching. This greatly extends drive lifespan and reduces memory needs. 

R9 3900x; 64GB RAM | RTX 2080 | 1.5TB Optane P4800x

1TB ADATA XPG Pro 8200 SSD | 2TB Micron 1100 SSD
HD800 + SCHIIT VALI | Topre Realforce Keyboard

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

So… 1) it does not outperform the Samsung 970 Pro and 2) the best it can do is copy Apple's Fusion Drive technology to Windows…? (Which the video failed to mention by the way).

Wow best to get a PCIe RAID board and 2 (or more) actual SSDs instead 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am a bit behind following the channel, and I just watched the Enmotus Fuzedrive video from a month ago.

 

This is the first time I've been able to detect this in an LTT video, but it featured a lot of misinformation as to how SSDs work, more specifically how NAND flash memory works. (Maybe because this an area in computer tech I know a little bit more about and I just miss issues on topics I know less about. Or maybe the writer fucked up.)

I was unable to locate any post addressing these inaccuracies, so I'll do so here.

 

The inaccuracies start at 2:25 in the video.

 

1. NAND flash operates on what are known as program/erase cycles. Technically the problem with endurance isn't the voltages required to "write", or program the cell, but the voltages required to erase the cell sufficiently quickly. This however is a minor nitpick.

2. "Multi-level NAND can be used in single-level mode, where only a single layer in each cell is actually used at a time." This is the major inaccuracy of the video - both what Linus says, and the graphic displayed. A cell is a single, atomic unit. It is not subdivided in additional layers. Multi-level cells refer to the amount of voltage levels that can be reliably written or erased from that cell. A triple-level cell needs to be able to reliably read and write 8 different voltage levels (3 bits, hence triple-level). As long as a cell can reliably store the charge and the controller can reliably distinguish between different charge states, a cell may be as many or as few "levels" as you wish.

3. "That means that it will sacrifice, over time, both the performance and endurance that it was supposed to gain from the SLC cache". Filling up a drive that can operate its cells in SLC mode for caching purposes, causing the NAND available for cache usage to diminish does NOT harm endurance. Endurance is based on the number of P/E cycles a cell has undergone, it does not depend on the mode it is operating. It does not matter if you write to a cell in QLC or SLC mode - you're used up one cycle either way. Furthermore, performance is not sacrificed over time (at least not anymore than with regular usage). Performance deteriorates over time with normal usage as a matter of course. A cell at a given wear level, but operating in SLC mode will inherently be faster than the same cell operating in QLC mode, because the controller can "push" the cell more. "[...] it can tolerate a higher voltage change until the erase will be so slow that the block needs to be retired"

 

 

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/understanding-tlc-nand/2

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, martixy said:

I am a bit behind following the channel, and I just watched the Enmotus Fuzedrive video from a month ago.

Merged with official video thread (which is linked in video description too).

^^^^ That's my post ^^^^
<-- This is me --- That's your scrollbar -->
vvvv Who's there? vvvv

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Newegg

×