Nothing could be further from the truth.

I believe that this stems from the fact that the industry is stuck on using the HDD metric of $/GB and single drive cost as the primary measures of the cost. As I wrote in a previous post, “Storage managers getting wise to prevailing SSD limitations”, looking at historical or single drive cost metrics doesn’t accurately measure solution-level costs. So let’s try this again.

Yes, individual enterprise-class solid state drives (Enterprise Flash Drives) cost more than individual enterprise hard drives. So having stated this fact, let’s also be sure to state the fact that EFDs offer tremendous performance boosts (>100X), and can replace many 15K RPM HDDs. Budget constraints require that enterprises and data centers focus on maximizing both performance and efficiency, so transaction cost ($/IOPS) is also a key metric.

The goal is to provide a storage solution that optimizes for both $/GB and $/IOPS.

Let’s look at a typical data warehousing application from the TPC-C benchmarks (http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp). The storage solution must provide 640,000 transactions/minute (320,000 IOPS) for 18 TB of data. With a typical all-HDD solution, this requires:

• 1000 15K 2.5-inch HDDs (short stroked to 18GB)
• 40 rack mounted shelves
• 8000 watts to operate and (an additional) 8000 watts to cool
• Price tag = $ 450,000

Now, let’s look at how a ‘hybrid’ approach combining EFDs and existing HDDs can not only provide a lower transaction cost, but also a lower cost/GB and a lower total cost. This hybrid solution would be configured as outlined below:

Not only does the hybrid approach offer a much lower $/GB and $/IOP (and requires 34 fewer shelves), but the total cost is one-half that of the HDD-only configuration.

Did you catch that?  One-half the total cost.

At the end of the day, the numbers don’t lie. The value proposition of EFDs is simple, it provides ‘more for less’ – more performance for less cost, less power and floor space, and more reliability. And, EFDs can be managed with existing software.

What will IT managers do with all the savings?

Amyl Ahola

The list of SSD jargon Kerekes cites in the article includes: dynamic leveling, active leveling, static leveling, BCH codes, Reed Solomon codes, write endurance, write amplification, write attenuation, garbage collection, read patrol, wear leveling, read disturb, and program disturb.

Look at the last two.  These are rarely discussed but are among the most important issues to those who care about losing data.  An earlier STORAGEsearch.com article asks the question, “Can you trust your flash SSD specs & Benchmarks?”  The answer can only be ‘of course not!’  At least not until there is some semblance of standardization.  This is especially true when considering using SSDs to meet the performance and reliability demands of enterprise applications.

With this in mind, some questions that should be asked (and answered) about SSD performance and reliability specs and benchmarks are:

1.    What is the real performance?

A simple question but rarely, if ever, addressed in the specifications.  Typical environments are random, 60%-70% read, and 4K/8K blocks.  Not small blocks (512b) to show high IOPs, or large blocks to show high bandwidth.

2.    Is the performance deterministic?

The writing process for flash is inherently slower than reading.  Does the performance drop substantially as a function of the read/write mix or does it stay relatively constant as needed to maintain consistent response times?  Is the performance dependent upon the use of cache (and the associated power loss and recovery issues of volatile cache memory)?

3.    Is the performance sustainable?

What does ‘sustainable’ mean? It is not unusual for performance to degrade as more and more of the device gets written to…it may take minutes or hours, but degradation of 50% or more may occur.

4.    What is the capacity available to the user?

Another simple question, but all SSDs contain more flash than that available for end user data. For example, the additional (or over-provisioned) flash may be used to optimize write performance, provide for spare blocks, CRC codes, ECC codes, and meta data.  Does the stated capacity net this all out?

5.    Are there duty cycle or other limitations on usage in order to achieve/maintain the specifications?

Does the architecture provide for 100% duty cycle, or is the product life contingent on a maximum number of writes or writes per day due to limited error management capability.

Is it assumed there will be ‘adequate’ idle time (what’s that in the enterprise?) to perform the necessary flash management activities?

6.    Are the error management and ECC algorithms powerful enough to correct read disturb and program disturb errors without resulting in excessive rates of uncorrectable errors and/or losing capacity due to bad block mapping?

Error correction approaches which utilize limited ECC to correct random bit failures may not have sufficient correction capability for read/program disturb errors. Correction capabilities may appear adequate but be based on codes, such as the Reed Solomon code, which is great for hard drives but not really applicable to flash failure modes. The lack of idle time for background flash management makes this problematic for many / most SSD architectures.

Kerekes sums it up well: “Better user education about SSDs is a critical factor for the industry to sustain its growth. Design trade offs in products go far deeper than the choice of memory and interface. Being aware that there are other parameters which SSD vendors have implemented well, badly (or not at all) can be the difference between a satisfactory or disillusionary experience.”

What do you think?

Amyl Ahola

Mark covers data center storage and systems for Enterprise Strategy Group.  He was recently interviewed for a SearchStorage.com “FAQ Guide” podcast about the growth in enterprise solid state technology.  (Read the full transcript here)

In the interview, Mark addresses the questions he hears most often from storage administrators about solid state technology, and I have to say that his views are spot-on — particularly regarding the benefits and value of solid state, and the market/business drivers that are making the technology increasingly attractive.

A few of the key points Mark makes are:

1)  I/O performance benefits

“Generically, whatever is most important to a business or enterprise or organization in terms of getting throughput and I/O handled, wherever you need speed, wherever you need a great deal of performance in terms of throughput, then solid state will be great.”

2)  Energy efficiency

“Given that we’re in such challenging economic times, that makes solid state more interesting.  Obviously with my focus on the data center I look at the green aspect of computing as well, and it’s hard to overlook solid state from that perspective.”

3)  Cost-efficiency

“Even in terms of today’s pricing, cost per I/O or the I/O per watt for solid state are already very compelling.”

It’s nice to see Mark (and other industry experts) start to recognize the important and growing role EFDs will play in the future.

Amyl Ahola

PS.  Mark also has a blog with more great info on a variety data center storage issues:  Mark My Words.  I suggest checking it out if you haven’t already.

Predictable performance has traditionally been a challenge for SSDs in enterprise applications because workloads are random and indeterminate. This means that predictability requires consistent performance, independent of whether reading or writing data, as enterprise applications typically vary the read-to-write ratio between 60/40 and 90/10.  Ensuring that predictable performance is maintained while the workload changes is another example of how an Enterprise Flash Drive (EFD) offers differentiation from traditional SSDs. 

A performance comparison (IOmeter-based) between a well-publicized ‘enterprise’ SSD and the new Pliant EFD illustrates this difference.  From the chart, you can see how the ‘enterprise’ SSD(I) performance drops by over 80% as the read/write ratio changes. The Pliant EFD maintains its performance across the range from 100% reads to a 50/50 read/write ratio. This is because the Pliant EFD can read and write simultaneously to the drive and therefore offer substantially better and predictable performance for these demanding applications. Traditional SSDs and HDDs can only perform one read or write at a time. 

The bottom line: EFDs enable enterprises to achieve higher I/O performance, maintain performance predictability with changing workloads, offer higher levels of service quality, and dynamically address changing business requirements without adding additional hardware.   

I’m curious to hear what you think, so please feel free to comment.

Amyl