>Yes, if you read what I wrote I mentioned the three orders of magnitude increase in write endurance as compared with NAND. But when paired with the three orders of magnitude increase in performance, that means it takes the same number of hours to burn it out.
Only in some bizarro world where "three orders of magnitude increase in performance" also means "we'll write three orders of magnitude more data into it".
Loads are about use cases, not about how fast you can fill a disk. If my company produces 1TB analytics info per day it wont suddenly produce 1000TB just because I can write to the disks we buy faster.
Of course being able to fill it faster also opens up some new, more heavy, use cases. But for any existing use cases, we'd be writing the SAME data volumes we do now, just 1000 times as fast and with 1000 times the endurace.
And even if we write 100 the data we do now, we still get 10 times the endurance.
Only in some bizarro world where "three orders of magnitude increase in performance" also means "we'll write three orders of magnitude more data into it".
Loads are about use cases, not about how fast you can fill a disk. If my company produces 1TB analytics info per day it wont suddenly produce 1000TB just because I can write to the disks we buy faster.
Of course being able to fill it faster also opens up some new, more heavy, use cases. But for any existing use cases, we'd be writing the SAME data volumes we do now, just 1000 times as fast and with 1000 times the endurace.
And even if we write 100 the data we do now, we still get 10 times the endurance.