Read more.Offers cost effective yet "nearly equivalent performance to SLC NAND flash".
Read more.Offers cost effective yet "nearly equivalent performance to SLC NAND flash".
Has a tradeoff in terms of half the capacity? I'd say that's pretty much a real problem there people
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
That's the difference between SLC and MLC though, always has been - you trade-off speed/endurance and capacity.
Isn't this what others have been doing for the last couple of years as in a write cache.
Yeah just this is a full drive used that way, as I understand it. I'd be interested to know if there are any significant differences at a low level between this psuedo-SLC and actual SLC. It could just be that 'true' SLC goes through a different validation process and is lower-volume and therefore maybe more expensive?
I think I would prefer a drive which does this but but then moves the most used long term data onto the other levels of the cell. TLC has better read rates as far as I know.
A bit like an sshd in a way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)