New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
At what stage does the energy costs of SSDs and NVMe make them preferable to spinning disks?
At what stage does the energy costs of SSDs and NVMe make them preferable to spinning disks?
I was reading some articles about the energy advantages of SSDs and NVMe storage and I wonder how and when they become preferably to spinning disks, not just because of speed, but because of the energy and the space they occupy.
After seeing how Netcup brought out the SSD4x offer, I wonder whether providers are being stingy with their SSD offerings if not NVMe. It is years since SSD become available but providers seem to charge an unwarranted premium for them.
Comments
Neglectable in the grand scheme of crap that go on in a datacenter.
But, if you have a storage chassis which has 40 or so HDDs, it requires sequential powerup since a HDD requires quite a bit of power to start spinning and get it going.
I reckon SSD won't have this issue.
I guess it really depends on how much electricity costs in that datacenter's location.
Also does anyone know why two TLC SSDs, Samsung 960 EVO and Intel 760p have wildly different rated power consumption for similar performance?
960 EVO - ~5W
760p - ~0.05W
760p Intel, yeah?
It has a single SLC chip that deals with most of stuff before it's filled up and moves to its slower chips. They could be advertising power usage for SLC chip only.
Additionally, I have EVO has RAM which needs to be power on all the time. I don't think 760p has any ram on it.
But I am quite clueless about 760p at the moment.
With laptops they make most sense IMO.
Especially for thin and light laptops.
But I am using exclusively M.2 SSDs for my computers at home to reduce cables.