SSD with New HSDL Interface Boasts Gobs of Bandwidth(hothardware.com)
hothardware.com
SSD with New HSDL Interface Boasts Gobs of Bandwidth
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/OCZ-IBIS-HSDL-Solid-State-Drive-Preview/
6 comments
SSD technology is a game changer for data centers. Traditional hard drives generate loads of heat and being able to outfit a whole data center with them reduces cooling significantly which directly affects the bottom line (cooling is the #1 expense for the vast majority of data centers).
Now I'm just waiting for our broadband to inch up to 740MB/sec :)
Now I'm just waiting for our broadband to inch up to 740MB/sec :)
Acutally this SSD in particular consumes about as much power as a 10k RPM Raptor desktop drive when active (http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/2009-3.5-desktop-hard-dri...), although having served requests quickly it can then go back to its idle state much faster.
In terms of online gigabytes per watt, SSDs will lose out badly to traditional hard drives. IOPS per watt, of course, is a whole different story, and hard drive IO bottlenecked servers will run potentially an order of magnitude faster.
So rather than outfitting whole datacenters with them, both technologies will live side by side for quite a few years to come. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if spinning rust lives on longer in data centers than mainstream PCs and laptops.
In terms of online gigabytes per watt, SSDs will lose out badly to traditional hard drives. IOPS per watt, of course, is a whole different story, and hard drive IO bottlenecked servers will run potentially an order of magnitude faster.
So rather than outfitting whole datacenters with them, both technologies will live side by side for quite a few years to come. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if spinning rust lives on longer in data centers than mainstream PCs and laptops.
>In terms of online gigabytes per watt, SSDs will
>lose out badly to traditional hard drives.
I think the parent poster is talking about the amount of storage, not the rate of transfer. And in that metric, seeing how you can get 1TB hard drives for $70, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Of course, it seems wasteful to need insanely fast access to things like movies or media/archival data in your home library.
Of course, it seems wasteful to need insanely fast access to things like movies or media/archival data in your home library.
If even if reitzensteinm was talking about capacity-per-watt, he's still wrong. The specific drive he mentioned was the "Raptor" model but that's an old, slow, small (150G) and power hungry (9.5W) disk. The newer WD "VelociRaptor" 10K RPM disk is more likely what he meant, and is a more fair comparison. The new Velociraptor only has a 600 GB capacity. The highest capacity OCD IBIS drive is 960 GB.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=821 http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/hsd...
OCD IBIS Power: 6.6 Watts Idle 9.5 Watts Active
WD VelociRaptor Power: 4.30 Watts Idle 6.20 Watts Active
Now we do the math. A total of 9600 GB would be 10 OCD disk or 16 VelociRaptor disk.
16 x 6.20 = 99.2 --WD VelociRaptor
10 x 9.5 = 95 --OCD IBIS
Similar is true for idle.
If we were not limited to VelociRaptor, when you get into some of the very slow but very huge disks (1-2 TB), sure, you could beat the rather specific OCD IBIS models on Capacity-Per-Watt. But it is very unfair to open only one side of the rotating vs. ssd comparison to every disk made, and there are higher capacity SSD's with even better power consumption numbers than the OCD IBIS.
As you noted, the metric of Cost-Per-Capacity is often 10 or more times more favorable for rotating disks. If you don't have a valid _need_ for the speed offered by SSDs, they are certainly not worth the added costs.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=821 http://www.ocztechnology.com/products/solid-state-drives/hsd...
OCD IBIS Power: 6.6 Watts Idle 9.5 Watts Active
WD VelociRaptor Power: 4.30 Watts Idle 6.20 Watts Active
Now we do the math. A total of 9600 GB would be 10 OCD disk or 16 VelociRaptor disk.
16 x 6.20 = 99.2 --WD VelociRaptor
10 x 9.5 = 95 --OCD IBIS
Similar is true for idle.
If we were not limited to VelociRaptor, when you get into some of the very slow but very huge disks (1-2 TB), sure, you could beat the rather specific OCD IBIS models on Capacity-Per-Watt. But it is very unfair to open only one side of the rotating vs. ssd comparison to every disk made, and there are higher capacity SSD's with even better power consumption numbers than the OCD IBIS.
As you noted, the metric of Cost-Per-Capacity is often 10 or more times more favorable for rotating disks. If you don't have a valid _need_ for the speed offered by SSDs, they are certainly not worth the added costs.
I honestly don't think we'd disagree on much if we sat down over a beer and discusse the issue. I'm as excited about SSDs as you are, and it seems that, from your above post at least, you agree that speed is the primary driver in SSD adoption right now.
It was not my intent to be argumentative - I just read your post and thought, power consumption as a benefit, are you sure you've done the math on this?
By the way, I couldn't find any 2 TB drives that were not PCI-X, so I do stand by my original analysis. With 1 TB SSDs, you'll still need 2x the servers. If you can piece together an SSD solution, ignoring cost, and including server wattage that can beat out an array of 2 TB drives on wattage, I will retract my original statement. You can use the idle power as the active power for the drives.
It was not my intent to be argumentative - I just read your post and thought, power consumption as a benefit, are you sure you've done the math on this?
By the way, I couldn't find any 2 TB drives that were not PCI-X, so I do stand by my original analysis. With 1 TB SSDs, you'll still need 2x the servers. If you can piece together an SSD solution, ignoring cost, and including server wattage that can beat out an array of 2 TB drives on wattage, I will retract my original statement. You can use the idle power as the active power for the drives.
How do you figure? Surely SSD drives have lower power consumption than a bunch of spinning platters, even when considering the increased number you need.
For equal capacity, they surely don't. Compare, say ten 200GB SSDs against one 2TB HDD; the power ought to be comparable (of course, the SSDs would provide dramatically higher performance).
If you're only pushing data into an SSD array at hard drive speeds, you won't be able to get all of them to stay out of idle mode, so the total power consumption of the SSD array will probably never top that of the hard drive.
To bring some real-world numbers in to this, a Western Digital VelociRaptor (10K RPM) draws 6.2W while reading or writing, and 4.3W while idle but online. An Intel X25-E 64GB draws 2.6W while reading and writing, and 0.06W while idle. Let's assume that you have 7 of the SSDs in a non-RAID aggregated volume, and one of the 450GB VelociRaptors, and you're streaming data to and from them at the fastest rate the VelociRaptor can handle. In order for the SSD array to draw as much power as the active VelociRaptor, you have to average 2.3 SSDs active at once. If the transfers are mostly sequential, you will basically never have more than two SSDs active at once. If you have random accesses, then you can obviously get many of the SSDs active at once, but they can all fulfill their requests and return to idle before the VelociRaptor has served the first request. In order for your SSD array to average the same power consumption as the VelociRaptor, it would have to be executing about 7.7K random 4KB writes per second, or 83K random 4KB reads per second. That difference in performance is big enough that the power draw of SSDs will never be a net disadvantage, and the running cost of an SSD-based solution will not be higher than the running cost of a hard-drive based solution.
To bring some real-world numbers in to this, a Western Digital VelociRaptor (10K RPM) draws 6.2W while reading or writing, and 4.3W while idle but online. An Intel X25-E 64GB draws 2.6W while reading and writing, and 0.06W while idle. Let's assume that you have 7 of the SSDs in a non-RAID aggregated volume, and one of the 450GB VelociRaptors, and you're streaming data to and from them at the fastest rate the VelociRaptor can handle. In order for the SSD array to draw as much power as the active VelociRaptor, you have to average 2.3 SSDs active at once. If the transfers are mostly sequential, you will basically never have more than two SSDs active at once. If you have random accesses, then you can obviously get many of the SSDs active at once, but they can all fulfill their requests and return to idle before the VelociRaptor has served the first request. In order for your SSD array to average the same power consumption as the VelociRaptor, it would have to be executing about 7.7K random 4KB writes per second, or 83K random 4KB reads per second. That difference in performance is big enough that the power draw of SSDs will never be a net disadvantage, and the running cost of an SSD-based solution will not be higher than the running cost of a hard-drive based solution.
You're not taking the increase in the number of servers into account. Seven times as many hard drives requires seven times as many servers[1], and those extra CPUs and power supplies and cooling fans and motherboards and the extra RAM will consume far more than any power savings SSDs may give.
[1]I was talking in the grandparent post about optimising for online gigabytes per watt. I'm assuming we still are, because SSDs are a huge win except for this instance. If we're talking about performance, SSDs are so much better than mechanical there's basically no comparison. Optimising for online gigabytes per watt, your servers will have the maximum number of hard drives installed, always.
[1]I was talking in the grandparent post about optimising for online gigabytes per watt. I'm assuming we still are, because SSDs are a huge win except for this instance. If we're talking about performance, SSDs are so much better than mechanical there's basically no comparison. Optimising for online gigabytes per watt, your servers will have the maximum number of hard drives installed, always.
Why is it better to have the RAID controller integrated on the disk instead of connecting several (cheaper) disks separately and use motherboards or software RAID
Faster throughput due to less busses to pass through. It likely also has something to do with why it appears to be so fast, using the RAID to spread the load across multiple groups of Flash chips.
In addition by using the SI3124 chip I think this thing will 'Just Work(tm)' with recent Linux kernels -- its the same chipset in the SATA card I use for SW RAID. I'd be happy to test my theory if someone would send me a drive ;)
In addition by using the SI3124 chip I think this thing will 'Just Work(tm)' with recent Linux kernels -- its the same chipset in the SATA card I use for SW RAID. I'd be happy to test my theory if someone would send me a drive ;)
Why not give them a window right into memory (ala himem or EMM) and then SSD can also have "execute in place" ability someday when they are fast enough.
Intel's looking at doing this, with an interface from the southbridge and probably soon from the CPU itself. I think eventually for low-end PCs and netbooks, CPUs will just have big L3 (DRAM) caches, and flash behind that, and no system DRAM at all.
If they can get the power of the CPU down low enough, they could probably bolt on a DRAM layer, right on top of the CPU die, and connect them with through-silicon vias. Your L3 cache could have the same die size as the CPU, and the connection to the CPU could be very fast, both in bandwidth and in latency.
Actually, these "low-end PCs and netbooks" are sounding like speed demons, the more I think about them.
Actually, these "low-end PCs and netbooks" are sounding like speed demons, the more I think about them.
On-die DRAM cache is a solved problem (though IBM probably owns the patent). DRAM itself is not that power intensive that it would present a problem for the CPU TDP.
I checked, and apparently they've now invented on-die DRAM that doesn't require extra processing steps. Nice! Die stacking would still have advantages in reducing wire delay (thus reducing the L2 miss penalty) and increasing the yield.
The latency of NAND flash (~25us) is still orders of magnitude too high to support MMIO access, so you're better off using DMA a la Fusion io or Violin. PCM-M may be a different story if it arrives.
This is utterly bonkers. I badly want one.
240GB model offers up to 740MB/sec max read throughput and 720MB/sec maximum write throughput. Of course, blazing fast SSD technology like this also comes at a premium, as you'd expect.
Note: the above is a verbatim quotation from the article. I think it's poor form to do that without indicating that it's a quotation.
For some perspective:
cat /dev/sda | pv > /dev/null
cat'ing and piping into pv is a poor way to benchmark as the CPU overhead is too high (the buffer size for a pipe kernel object is 4kB, forcing a high number of context switches). Try "dd bs=32k </dev/sda >/dev/zero" and monitor with "iostat -m 1", you will see a higher throughput.
hdparm comes with something built-in that tries to do a reasonable first-cut benchmark, 'hdparm -t /dev/sda'
Thanks for the tip!
what was your result?
The main benefit of this connection is the 4 port version in a single PCI Express x16 2.0 slot. Anandtech predicts it might reach 2.5GB/s
Hopefully, if this takes off OEMs can drop the internal SATA RAID going on inside the device for even further gains.
EDIT: also very encouraging is the internal garbage collection that goes on when the disk is idle. Trim does not work on RAID and it is great to see performance can still be regained after prolonged use.