Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Optane didn't sell because they focused on their weird persistent DIMM sticks, which are a nightmare for enterprise where for many ordinary purposes you want ephemeral data that disappears as soon as you cut power. Thet should have focused on making ordinary storage and solving the interconnect bandwidth and latency problems differently, such as with more up-to-date PCIe standards.


I don't think that would be my main complaint. Sticking optane in a dimm was just awkward as hell. You now have different bits of memory with very different characteristics, & you lose a ton of bandwidth.

If CXL was around at the time it would have been such a nice fit, allowing for much lower latency access.

It also seems like in spite of the bad fit, there were enough regular options drives, and they were indeed pretty incredible. Good endurance, reasonable price (and cheap as dirt if you consider that endurance/lifecycle cost!), some just fantastic performance figures. My conclusion is that alas there just aren't many people in the world who are serious about storage performance.


Can Linux differentiate that different dimms are different? Or does it see it all as one big memory space still?


Yes, Linux was aware of the difference via ACPI tables.


[flagged]


> and file systems built around NAND assumptions, a lot of the upside got shaved off before users ever saw it.

What file systems ? Most common one you'd find would be ext4 or XFS and neither of them are




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: