[wtallis]

You're pretty far off the mark about SSD caching. A majority of consumer SSDs are now DRAMless, and still can exceed PCIe 4.0 x4 bandwidth for sequential transfers. Only a seriously outdated SSD would still be using DDR3; good ones should be using LPDDR4 or maybe DDR4. And when a SSD does have DRAM, it isn't there for the sake of caching your data, it's for caching the driver's internal metadata that tracks the mapping of logical block addresses to physical NAND flash pages.

[shadowpho]

Here’s a page comparison 8 modern SSD cache, notice how they all fall off once the cache is full.

https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/423337-animated-graphs...

[wtallis]

That has nothing to do with DRAM; that would be completely obvious if you stopped to think about the cache sizes implied by writing at 5-6GB/s for tens of seconds before speeds drop. Nobody's putting 100+ GB of DRAM on a single SSD. You get at most 1GB of DRAM per 1TB of NAND.

What those graphs illustrate is SLC caching: writing faster by storing one bit per NAND flash memory cell (imprecisely), then eventually re-packing that data to store three or four memory bits per cell (as is necessary to achieve the drive's nominal capacity). Note that this only directly affects write operations; reading data at several GB/s is possible even for data that's stored in TLC/QLC cells, and can be sustained for the entire capacity of the drive.

[shadowpho]

Interesting, that makes sense, but my point still stands: all 8 of those devices fall down 4-8x in speed at some point, meaning for sequential transfers speed falls off and can handle 4-8x less lanes

[wtallis]

The performance drop due to SLC caching only applies to writes. Sequential reads (and often, even random reads at sufficiently high queue depth) will still more or less saturate the PCIe link. Most workloads and use cases read a lot more data than they write.