Who could ask for more than seeing a new storage industry product announcement to highlight the points you’ve been trying to make?
 
I found myself in that position, and was quite surprised (well not really surprised…more like incredulous) to see a recent announcement of what had been frequently referred to as the Seagate “brick” project (not related to MiniScribe), but minimally disguised within a Seagate-funded private company.  The product that was announced is another version of a sealed unit consisting of multiple hard drives “purpose-built to maximize performance and reliability.”  The announcement makes it clear that many new techniques must have been employed to achieve “self-healing,” and to enable the product to essentially repair itself in place “to the equivalent of a fresh, factory-manufactured drive.”  Wow!  I will leave it up to people smarter than me to respond to this.

What I’d like to discuss is the price performance aspect of this announcement.  The systems tested were fully mirrored, making comparisons never quite “apples to apples.”  However, one needs to keep in mind that the MTBF of the drives employed require mirroring to reach any reasonable reliability level.  While I could not find any real price or performance data on the company’s web site, the reference to their SPC benchmarks provided considerable data.
 
From a pricing standpoint, the 1.03TB configuration sells for more than $36 per gigabyte (after a 40% discount from $60/GB)…and, flash-based SSD at $30/GB is considered expensive?
 
This benchmark is also said to be record-breaking with the lowest cost per SPC-1 IOPs.  I’m not suggesting that $36/GB is unreasonable, only that it illustrates the true cost of hard drives in high-performance environments.  A closer look at the benchmark is even more telling.  This “record-breaking” performance correlates to a response time of nearly 30 milliseconds.  In fact, response time increases dramatically starting at about 50% of the max IOPs, which is certainly troublesome for high transaction-rate systems.

This project was started a few years ago, apparently to address the growing price, performance and reliability gap in enterprise applications, as we have been talking about, and to hold off the encroachment of solid state storage devices.  However, with today’s technology, well designed Enterprise Flash Drives will not only be lower in cost per GB, less than 1/4th the cost per IOP, and more reliable.  And, did I mention power:  EFD’s will be well less than 1/100th the watts per IOPs.  I cannot help but be reminded of the Anderson Cooper segment on CNN:  “What were they thinking!”

Amyl Ahola

The dramatic reductions in HDD cost per GB have resulted in many system/storage architects (and application/operating system programmers) treating primary storage as though it is free.

Some of the results are:

• Exponential increases in the size of operating systems and applications
• Mass deployment of low-end and midrange servers with multiple copies of data (and applications)
• Over-provisioning of storage to satisfy future needs projections (which also likely adopt the concept of free storage)
• Adoption of power-hungry DRAM cache appliances to mask HDD performance shortfalls
• Over-provisioning of HDDs to mask HDD performance shortfalls

These all result in inefficient use of storage that has many costs, not the least of which is the increasing cost of energy consumption.  Some of the energy data becoming available paints a sobering picture:

• Data centers account for 1.5% of ALL U.S. electrical consumption, and this is expected to double in a few years
• Power consumption per $1,000 of server spending has increased by a factor of 4 since 2000
• Power failure and availability is expected to halt data center operations at more than 90% of all companies over the next few years
• Fifty percent of current data centers will have insufficient power and cooling capacity this year

HDDs are clearly not the only contributor to the rapid acceleration of data center power consumption, but their inefficient use is likely one of the largest contributors.  Data that suggests more than one third of data center power consumption is storage related.

Trends and techniques such as consolidation, virtualization and thin provisioning should all contribute to improved efficiencies.  But while doing so, these approaches will put increased performance demands on the HDDs.  The result:  an increased need for higher performance (i.e., higher RPM……read that as ‘power consuming’) drives and even further over-provisioning for performance – and therefore once again increased energy consumption.

It’s time for new metrics to be considered in the data centers, which take into account energy usage to aid the system designers as they optimize their systems.  Several metrics are identified at the www.greendatastorage.com website; examples cited include activity per watt, such as transactions/Watt, IOPs/Watt, and bandwidth/Watt.

I believe that Enterprise Flash Drives (EFDs) will play a major role in reversing these trends. EFDs can provide over 1000x improvement in IOPs/Watt, and an order of magnitude or more improvement in bandwidth/Watt over the highest performing HDD’s.

Amyl Ahola

I was intrigued by a blog post by Chuck Hollis of EMC last week (“Chuck’s Blog”) offering an interesting perspective on the whole “green IT” issue:  http://chucksblog.typepad.com/chucks_blog/2008/03/green-it—-are.html. 

Chuck suggests that the IT industry may be missing the point on “green IT.”  Specifically, while it is important to pursue green IT goals from an energy efficiency perspective, the real goal should be “efficient IT,” which can, as a result, generate a number of green benefits, including improved power consumption and footprint reductions.  He further suggests that just because something is green, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is efficient.

I couldn’t agree more.  While I believe that green IT is a critical objective for virtually all enterprise IT environments, there are a number of IT efficiency issues that must be addressed now for their own sake.  Take the use of enterprise HDDs for example.  Many of today’s IT managers are using 3 to 4 times more HDDs than they need from a capacity perspective just to meet growing I/O performance requirements.   This “over provisioning” is at best a band-aid approach to improving I/O, and is probably one of the most inefficient uses of IT technology I’ve seen.

I’ll have more to say on this later, but for now I just wanted to note the importance of pursuing efficient IT for its own sake.  The benefits can be many, not the least of which is a greener IT environment.

Amyl Ahola

As I thought more about the topic of my last post – how far the storage industry has come since its inception – another point occurred to me.  While disk drive capacity and cost achievements have been incredible, orders of magnitude improvement, disk drive performance gains are unremarkable – especially when you compare them to the significant advances in CPU and network performance.

Now, I don’t want to receive an inbox full of angry emails (angry comments are welcomed!) about this, so let me make it clear that I truly appreciate the technological challenges and the progress that has been made towards reducing disk latency and positioning times.  But, at the end of the day performance improvement is less than 40x in nearly 50 years!  This compares to multiple orders of magnitude improvement in CPU performance during the same period.

Amdahl’s (other) Law requires that I/O performance improve at the same rate as CPU performance to maintain balanced system performance.  However, with the lag in disk drive performance I/O over the years, what we have now is a growing gap that system designers have had to cope with in their attempt to balance system performance.   The result:  the birth of new industries so that the system designers can add additional hardware – such as cache and RAID together with short-stroking and over-provisioning the disk drives – in an attempt to overcome the performance and reliability shortfalls due to the mechanical nature of HDD’s.

While these approaches do improve performance to some degree, they also carry a significant cost to customers.  This is due not only to the cost of the additional hardware and software but increased system complexity, increased power consumption, reduced reliability, increased floor space, increased maintenance expense, and on and on.  What is the true cost of HDD performance….it is anybody’s guess, but I’d argue that it is far greater than what is generally believed!

I believe that this is the most important data storage issue that needs to be addressed.   In particular, how can the industry solve the I/O performance problem without even more patches (e.g., more cache) and ever increasing over provisioning? 

I have some thoughts that I’ll share next time.  In the meantime, I’d love to hear from you.

Amyl Ahola