Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

blog.zuthof.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 164 posts

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#61

Post by hedora »

exmadscientist wrote: post #40

Around the time of Optane's discontinuation, the rumor mill was saying that the real reason it got the axe was that it couldn't be shrunk any, so its costs would never go down. Does anyone know if that's true? I never heard anything solid, but it made a lot of sense given what we know about Optane's fab process. And if no shrink was possible, is that because it was (a) possible but too hard; (b) known blocks to a die…

I think it was killed primarily because the DIMM version had a terrible programming API. There was no way to pin a cache line, update it and flush, so no existing database buffer pool algorithms were compatible with it. Some academic work tried to address this, but I don’t know of any products.

The SSD form factor wasn’t any faster at writes than NAND + capacitor-backed power loss protection. The read path was faster, but only in time to first byte. NAND had comparable / better throughput. I forget where the cutoff was, but I think it was less than 4-16KB, which are typical database read sizes.

So, the DIMMs were unprogrammable, and the SSDs had a “sometimes faster, but it depends” performance story.

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#63

Post by myself248 »

wtallis wrote: post #53
amluto wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Optane memory Which “Optane memory”? The NVMe product always worked on non-Intel. The NVDIMM products that I played with only ever worked on a very small set of rather specialized Intel platforms. I bet AMD could have supported them about as easily as Intel, and Intel barely ever managed to support them.

The consumer "Optane memory" products were a combination of NVMe and Intel's proprietary caching software, the latter of which was locked to Intel's platforms. They also did two generations of hybrid Optane+QLC drives that only worked on certain Intel platforms, because they ran a PCIe x2+x2 pair of links over a slot normally used for a single X2 or x4 link. Yes, the pure-Optane consumer "Optane memory" products were…

Exactly. I happen to have all AMD sitting around here, and buying my first Optane devices was a gamble, because I had no idea if they'd work. Only reason I ever did, is they got cheap at one point and I could afford the gamble.

That uncertainty couldn't have done the market any favors.

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#64

Post by wtallis »

amluto wrote: post #59
wtallis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consumer "Optane memory" products were a combination of NVMe and Intel's proprietary caching software, the latter of which was locked to Intel's platforms. They also did two generations of hybrid Optane+QLC drives that only worked on certain Intel platforms, because they ran a PCIe x2+x2 pair of links over a slot normally used for a single X2 or x4 link. Yes, the pure-Optane consumer "Optane memory" products were…

I feel like this is proving my point. You can’t read “Optane” and have any real idea of what you’re buying. Also… were those weird hybrid SSDs even implemented by actual hardware, or were they part of the giant series of massive kludges in the “Rapid Storage” family where some secret sauce in the PCIe host lied to the OS about what was actually connected so an Intel driver could replace the OS’s native storage driver…

> were those weird hybrid SSDs even implemented by actual hardware, or were they part of the giant series of massive kludges

They were definitely part of the series of massive kludges. But aside from the Intel platforms they were marketed for, I never found a PCIe host that could see both of the NVMe devices on the drive. Some hosts would bring up the x2 link to the Optane half of the drive, some hosts would bring up the x2 link to the QLC half of the drive, but I couldn't find any way to get both links active even when the drive was connected downstream of a PCIe switch that definitely had hardware support for bifurcation down to x2 links. I suspect that with appropriate firmware hacking on the host side, it may have been possible to get those drives fully operational on a non-Intel host.

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#65

Post by exmadscientist »

gozzoo wrote: post #48
exmadscientist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ideal usage of optane was as a ZIL in ZFS. It was also the best boot drive money could buy. Still is, I think, though other comments in the thread ask how it compares against today's best, which I'd also love to see.

This concept was very popular back in the days when computers used to boot from HDD, but now it doesn't make much sense. I wouldn't notice If my laptop boots for 5 sec instead of 10.

At the time of their introduction Optane drives were noticeably faster to boot your machine than even the fastest available Flash SSD. So in a workstation with multiple hard drives installed anyway, buying one to boot off of made decent sense.

If they had been cheaper, I think they'd have been really, really popular.

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#67

Post by georgeburdell »

exmadscientist wrote: post #40

Around the time of Optane's discontinuation, the rumor mill was saying that the real reason it got the axe was that it couldn't be shrunk any, so its costs would never go down. Does anyone know if that's true? I never heard anything solid, but it made a lot of sense given what we know about Optane's fab process. And if no shrink was possible, is that because it was (a) possible but too hard; (b) known blocks to a die…

Flash has the same shrink problem. And the solution for Optane was the same: go 3D

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#68

Post by osnium123 »

chrneu wrote: post #57
deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked at Micron in the SSD division when Optane (originally called crosspoint “Xpoint”) was being made. In my mind, there was never a real serious push to productize it. But it’s not clear to me whether that was due to unattractive terms of the joint venture or lack of clear product fit. There was certainly a time when it seemed they were shopping for engineers opinions of what to do with it, but I think they quic…

I worked at Intel for a while and might be able to explain this. There were/are often projects that come down from management that nobody thinks are worth pursuing. When i say nobody, it might not just be engineers but even say 1 or 2 people in management who just do a shit roll out. There are a lot of layers of Intel and if even one layer in the Intel Sandwich drag their feet it can kill an entire project. I saw it…

Are you referring to the Intel 10nm struggles in your reference to 2-3 people?

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#69

Post by myself248 »

hedora wrote: post #61
exmadscientist wrote: post #40

Around the time of Optane's discontinuation, the rumor mill was saying that the real reason it got the axe was that it couldn't be shrunk any, so its costs would never go down. Does anyone know if that's true? I never heard anything solid, but it made a lot of sense given what we know about Optane's fab process. And if no shrink was possible, is that because it was (a) possible but too hard; (b) known blocks to a die…

I think it was killed primarily because the DIMM version had a terrible programming API. There was no way to pin a cache line, update it and flush, so no existing database buffer pool algorithms were compatible with it. Some academic work tried to address this, but I don’t know of any products. The SSD form factor wasn’t any faster at writes than NAND + capacitor-backed power loss protection. The read path was faster…

It sounds like they didn't do a good job of putting the DIMM version in the hands of folks who'd write the drivers just for fun.

The read path is sort of a wash, but writes are still unequalled. NAND writes feel like you're mailing a letter to the floating gate...

Re: What makes Intel Optane stand out (2023)

#70

Post by zozbot234 »

myself248 wrote: post #69
hedora wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was killed primarily because the DIMM version had a terrible programming API. There was no way to pin a cache line, update it and flush, so no existing database buffer pool algorithms were compatible with it. Some academic work tried to address this, but I don’t know of any products. The SSD form factor wasn’t any faster at writes than NAND + capacitor-backed power loss protection. The read path was faster…

It sounds like they didn't do a good job of putting the DIMM version in the hands of folks who'd write the drivers just for fun. The read path is sort of a wash, but writes are still unequalled. NAND writes feel like you're mailing a letter to the floating gate...

Isn't this addressed by newer PCIe standards? Of course, even the "new" Optane media reviewed in OP is stuck on PCIe 4.0...
Post reply on HN