Hardware

5011 readers

1 users here now

This is a community dedicated to the hardware aspect of technology, from PC parts, to gadgets, to servers, to industrial control equipment, to semiconductors.

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to electronic hardware
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

Is it inadvisable to use an m.2 NVME drive as a storage location for video editing render cache? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 month ago by Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml to c/hardware@lemmy.ml

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I recently bought an external PCIe enclosure so I could make use of a specific PCIe device in an editing setup. One of the nice things about this particular enclosure is that it also happens to come with an m.2 slot for NVME drives as well.

Usually when I edit with my home set up, I'm provided with the storage by the client, and even if not, at the very least, video media, plus backups takes up a lot of room and NVME drives are expensive so I'd usually opt for something cheaper as the actual location for the footage and assets. I figured then that it might be take advantage of an NVME drive of a smaller, more affordable capacity and use it just as a location for video render cache that I just clear after every project wraps. The high speeds of these drives seems like it would be a good fit for this purpose.

However I've heard that SSDs, including NVME are famously short lived and have particularly short life spans in terms of number of write operations. Is that still the case and would the constant writing and clearing of relatively small video files actually be kind of the worst use of one of these drives?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mozingo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I thought most drives were still TLC and QLC is still pretty new, right?

But yes, QLC has more like 1000 write cycles, but either way, like 5-10%ish of TLC/QLC drives are SLC cache, meaning you'd get fast write speeds and 100,000 cycles on that part of the drive, but yes they wouldnt last as long as a pure SLC. From what I understand though, a lot of these drives will copy under used files from the SLC cache to the QLC cache since read speeds are basically the same, in order to optimize the percentage of actively used files in the SLC cache.