Is SSHD obsolete

Is SSHD obsolete.

Attached: download (1).jpg (1200x600, 73K)

it was never a thing user

It was obsolete from the start

Intel optane + compatible chipset + 10tb hdd

Anymore since QLC NAND is as slow as a physical disk

This.

If you really needed or wanted a SSD as a cache, it was still a MUCH better idea to pick the appropriate software for your situation. You'd tell your database or ceph or whatever specific software you want to boost this way that you got that SSD there that you want to use as cache. Or you set up llvmcache or bcache[fs] for your filesystem's writes or most frequent reads. Or you put the folders you predict to at some point URGENTLY need into RAM and then your SSD cache and only then to HDD according to some priority list.

Never mind very often at home, you can omit the cache and just have your shit [maybe minus media and backups] simply on SSD.

Having a magic HDD / SSD thing cache 200MB or 20GB or whatever of the most accessed blocks in general *isn't* usually ideal.

Solid State Drive + Hard Dick Drive -> the SSH Daemon?

Nothing more than an awkward half-step into the solid state storage transition for poorfags.

Disregard this abomination entirely.

Attached: A44436FC-D8E5-4587-BB0B-AB6500DB42E9.jpg (1125x839, 296K)

>floptane

How do these work? Do they share the controller, cache, bandwidth etc?

>Is mechanical obsolete!

Most only have 8gb "adaptive" cache. it is simply too small. The SSD thing needs to be 64gb minimum.

There were obsolete before the R&D was even done.

it was never good in the first place

no it isn't lol

Yes it is. Go read anyone's review of the intel 660p. When it fills up the faster NAND cache it slows to an absolute crawl and fares about as well as a HDD

doesn't SSD + HDD equal SSHDDD?

intel yea, but QLC isn't as bad as hard drives are. It's still faster.
Intel is garbo though

They were never not obsolete.

Samsung's is even slower, even with the cache layer. QLC is hot trash. At best you're looking at like 7200RPM HDD performance, maybe a little better for random but it's basically a big scam if not for the NVME format. That's literally the only advantage.

not 1 site is showing that, unless you have some magic HDD that is doing 300MB/s & higher

The SSD functions like a (relatively) huge cache. They behave like a hard drive until you use them a few times and then the hard disk controller puts the things that are accessed most frequently into the onboard "SSD" cache so when you access those things they load with SSD speeds. The onboard SSD is usually quite small relative to an actual SSD, they only have a few GBs of space so they're kinda a middle ground in price/performance between a hard disk and an SSD. They wouldn't be very effective as a data drive, they're more meant for running an OS or something.

It's pretty much equivalent after you've figured out what works best on either an SSD or HDD and allocated your data appropriately. These drives are kinda just automating the process and they may save a little bit of physical space but other than that they're not very useful.

Oh I didn't notice all of the extra Ds. I thought he was asking if they were equivalent he was just making a joke. Whoosh on my part.