| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 12:50 PM antlists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 30/07/2021 15:29, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Honestly I feel like the whole SMR thing is a missed opportunity, |
| 5 |
> > mainly because manufacturers decided to use it as a way to save a few |
| 6 |
> > bucks instead of as a new technology that can be embraced as long as |
| 7 |
> > you understand its benefits and limitations. One thing I don't get is |
| 8 |
> > why it is showing up on all sorts of smaller drives. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's showing up on desktops because - PROVIDED THE CACHE IS LARGER THAN |
| 11 |
> THE AMOUNT OF DOCUMENTS IS ABLE TO GET THROUGH - it performs just fine. |
| 12 |
> So if you're using a pre-installed OS, and you mostly use your computer |
| 13 |
> to surf the web, watch youtube videos, etc, you're not going to stress |
| 14 |
> said cache. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, in such a configuration an NVMe or even a SATA SSD would be FAR |
| 17 |
more desirable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Though, I guess an issue is consumers who buy for the numbers on the |
| 20 |
specs who don't know better. 4TB is better than 0.25TB, so SMR it |
| 21 |
is... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives