<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Intel Optane Memory Review &#8211; 1.4GB/s Speed &#038; 300K IOPS for $44	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/</link>
	<description>The Worlds Dedicated SSD Education and Review Resource &#124;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 21:17:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Neville Cawood		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/#comment-24066</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neville Cawood]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 21:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=95587#comment-24066</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[There&#039;s an option being overlooked by both Intel and MS:

Readyboost filters small (~4K), random, oft used files onto media with lower latency than the main drive.
The 2 drives then read/write files they are best and fastest at handling, at the same time.
ie: A sort of &#039;optimised for drive characteristics&#039;, RAID 0...

Now look at the random 4K read performance of Optane versus SATA SSDs and even NVME SSDs:
https://www.google.co.za/search?q=optane+4k+random+write&#038;safe=off&#038;source=lnms&#038;tbm=isch&#038;sa=X&#038;ved=0ahUKEwib_bSaqNHTAhWqB8AKHdxABmcQ_AUIDCgD&#038;biw=1536&#038;bih=798#safe=off&#038;tbm=isch&#038;q=optane+4k+random+versus+sata+ssd&#038;imgrc=_
Writes are not as impressive as random writes go into the DRAM cache on the SSDs, but:
&#062; This info can be lost in a power outage, so safer.
&#062; The low write speeds are only valid until the DRAM cache is full.
&#062; There should be an increase in SSD life as info is written to flash in 2-4 MB blocks 
    nowadays.

I think it&#039;s worth testing to see if Readyboost does a better job than Intel&#039;s RST due to this filtering/Optimised RAID 0..?

Info on overriding MS&#039;s Readyboost settings, to test this:
https://hatsoffsecurity.com/2015/05/31/force-enabling-readyboost-windows-78/
But will anyone?  The &#039;not invented here&#039; force is strong in humans!  :)

Romex:
Everyone knows that with your software installed you basically end up using a HDD benchmark to benchmark RAM.
Untick &#039;Direct IO&#039; in Atto and MS&#039;s Super/prefetch makes your block cache look stupid.
Can your software do predictive caching, without wasting RAM by caching what&#039;s already cached by prefetch?
ie:  Write software that switches on Superfetch with SSDs and add your SSD-saving &#039;deferred writes&#039; and I&#039;ll buy it!
I will say that your caching of HDDs to SSDs is very good and universal, so if one wants to cache any HDD onto any SSD, or even RAIDed SSDs;  PrimoCache is the best option.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s an option being overlooked by both Intel and MS:</p>
<p>Readyboost filters small (~4K), random, oft used files onto media with lower latency than the main drive.<br />
The 2 drives then read/write files they are best and fastest at handling, at the same time.<br />
ie: A sort of &#8216;optimised for drive characteristics&#8217;, RAID 0&#8230;</p>
<p>Now look at the random 4K read performance of Optane versus SATA SSDs and even NVME SSDs:<br />
<a href="https://www.google.co.za/search?q=optane+4k+random+write&#038;safe=off&#038;source=lnms&#038;tbm=isch&#038;sa=X&#038;ved=0ahUKEwib_bSaqNHTAhWqB8AKHdxABmcQ_AUIDCgD&#038;biw=1536&#038;bih=798#safe=off&#038;tbm=isch&#038;q=optane+4k+random+versus+sata+ssd&#038;imgrc=_" rel="nofollow ugc">https://www.google.co.za/search?q=optane+4k+random+write&#038;safe=off&#038;source=lnms&#038;tbm=isch&#038;sa=X&#038;ved=0ahUKEwib_bSaqNHTAhWqB8AKHdxABmcQ_AUIDCgD&#038;biw=1536&#038;bih=798#safe=off&#038;tbm=isch&#038;q=optane+4k+random+versus+sata+ssd&#038;imgrc=_</a><br />
Writes are not as impressive as random writes go into the DRAM cache on the SSDs, but:<br />
&gt; This info can be lost in a power outage, so safer.<br />
&gt; The low write speeds are only valid until the DRAM cache is full.<br />
&gt; There should be an increase in SSD life as info is written to flash in 2-4 MB blocks<br />
    nowadays.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s worth testing to see if Readyboost does a better job than Intel&#8217;s RST due to this filtering/Optimised RAID 0..?</p>
<p>Info on overriding MS&#8217;s Readyboost settings, to test this:<br />
<a href="https://hatsoffsecurity.com/2015/05/31/force-enabling-readyboost-windows-78/" rel="nofollow ugc">https://hatsoffsecurity.com/2015/05/31/force-enabling-readyboost-windows-78/</a><br />
But will anyone?  The &#8216;not invented here&#8217; force is strong in humans!  🙂</p>
<p>Romex:<br />
Everyone knows that with your software installed you basically end up using a HDD benchmark to benchmark RAM.<br />
Untick &#8216;Direct IO&#8217; in Atto and MS&#8217;s Super/prefetch makes your block cache look stupid.<br />
Can your software do predictive caching, without wasting RAM by caching what&#8217;s already cached by prefetch?<br />
ie:  Write software that switches on Superfetch with SSDs and add your SSD-saving &#8216;deferred writes&#8217; and I&#8217;ll buy it!<br />
I will say that your caching of HDDs to SSDs is very good and universal, so if one wants to cache any HDD onto any SSD, or even RAIDed SSDs;  PrimoCache is the best option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Arkadius Brand		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/#comment-24065</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arkadius Brand]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2017 21:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=95587#comment-24065</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Drop down box with sub-pages please. Clicking 1-9 is so annoying]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Drop down box with sub-pages please. Clicking 1-9 is so annoying</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ROMEX SOFTWARE		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/#comment-24055</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ROMEX SOFTWARE]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 02:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=95587#comment-24055</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[My system runs quite a bit faster than the Intel upgrade:
9,068 MB / s Read,  14,048 MB / sec Write.
4K Random Read 1,556 MB / sec,  4K Random Write 1,068 MB / sec.

https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/

Romex Primo Caching Software accelerates all read / write operations with RAM and SSD caching, turbo charging any CPU to run just as fast as the RAM can go...  

People keep trying to fix the Hard Drive speed bottle neck in hardware,
when it is much easier to fix in software, and RAM caching...

Primo Cache works similar to the Intel device.  Say you have 32GB of RAM,
set aside 16 GB for a super sized RAM cache - all read / writes work at RAM speeds.
Primo Cache pairs  ANY SSD device to the RAM cache, for a second level of persistent caching.     All the stuff you use all the time,  is copied to the SSD.

On boot up, the SSD reloads all your commonly used info into the RAM cache,
and the RAM cache dynamically updates itself to constantly keep you at top speed.

Go ahead and hook up your favorite 8 TB  Seagate Drives to your system...
PrimoCache ensures your Big Iron hard drives run at RAMming speed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My system runs quite a bit faster than the Intel upgrade:<br />
9,068 MB / s Read,  14,048 MB / sec Write.<br />
4K Random Read 1,556 MB / sec,  4K Random Write 1,068 MB / sec.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/" rel="nofollow ugc">https://www.romexsoftware.com/en-us/primo-cache/</a></p>
<p>Romex Primo Caching Software accelerates all read / write operations with RAM and SSD caching, turbo charging any CPU to run just as fast as the RAM can go&#8230;  </p>
<p>People keep trying to fix the Hard Drive speed bottle neck in hardware,<br />
when it is much easier to fix in software, and RAM caching&#8230;</p>
<p>Primo Cache works similar to the Intel device.  Say you have 32GB of RAM,<br />
set aside 16 GB for a super sized RAM cache &#8211; all read / writes work at RAM speeds.<br />
Primo Cache pairs  ANY SSD device to the RAM cache, for a second level of persistent caching.     All the stuff you use all the time,  is copied to the SSD.</p>
<p>On boot up, the SSD reloads all your commonly used info into the RAM cache,<br />
and the RAM cache dynamically updates itself to constantly keep you at top speed.</p>
<p>Go ahead and hook up your favorite 8 TB  Seagate Drives to your system&#8230;<br />
PrimoCache ensures your Big Iron hard drives run at RAMming speed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Bnet		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/#comment-24016</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bnet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 08:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=95587#comment-24016</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So it performs admirably as a read cache, but what about as a write cache? Would the low latency be good enough to overcome the limited sequential write speeds if faced with continuous cache eviction?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So it performs admirably as a read cache, but what about as a write cache? Would the low latency be good enough to overcome the limited sequential write speeds if faced with continuous cache eviction?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mark		</title>
		<link>https://www.thessdreview.com/our-reviews/ngff-m-2/intel-optane-memory-module-review-32gb-every-pc-user-know/#comment-24015</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 07:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thessdreview.com/?p=95587#comment-24015</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I wonder how reliable Optane is. Anandtech.com reported that when it failed it took some data with it. I have no issue recommending SSHD over plain HDD but what is worrying me is required software component.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how reliable Optane is. Anandtech.com reported that when it failed it took some data with it. I have no issue recommending SSHD over plain HDD but what is worrying me is required software component.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
