IBM FlashSystem

IBM FlashSystem

Find answers and share expertise on IBM FlashSystem

 View Only

Hybrid, Solid State and the future of RAID

By Tony Pearson posted Wed December 20, 2006 03:46 PM

  

Originally posted by: TonyPearson


Last week, in my posting on Toshiba's latest 1.8" drive, Robert Pearson asks:

You may not be the right person to ask but I am asking everyone so "How do you see hybrid disk drives?"

(For the record, I am not immediately related to Robert. At onepoint, "Pearson" was the 12th most common surname in the USA, but now doesn't even make the Top 100.)

Robert, I would like to encourage you and everyone else to ask questions, don't worry if I am the wrong person to ask, asprobably I know the right person within IBM. Some people have called me the "Kevin Bacon" of Storage,as I am often less than six degrees away from the right person, having worked in IBM Storage for over 20 years.

For those not familiar with hybrid drives, there is a good write-up in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, most of the people I would consult on this question, such as those from Market Intelligence or Research, are on vacation for the holidays, so, Robert, I will have to rely on my trusted 78-card Tarot deck and answer you with a five-card throw.

  • Your first card, Robert, is the Hermit. This card represents "introspection". The best I/O is no I/O, which means that if applications can keep the information they need inside server memory, you can avoid the bus bandwidth limitations to going to external storage devices. Where external storage makes sense is when data is shared between servers, or when the single server is limited to a set amount of internal memory. So, consider maxing out the memory in your server first (IBM would be glad to sell you more internal memory!!!), then consider outside solid-state or hybrid devices. Windows for example has an architectural limit of 4GB.
  • Your second card, Robert, is the Four of Cups, representing "apathy".On the card, you see three cups together, with the fourth cup being delivered from a cloud. This reminds me thatwe have three storage tiers already (memory,disk,tape), and introducing a fourth tier into the mix may not garnermuch excitement. For the mainframe, IBM introduced a Solid-State Device, call the Coupling Facility, which can be accessed from multipleSystem z servers. It is used heavily by DFSMS and DB2 to hold shared information. However, given some customer's apathytowards Information Lifecycle Management which includes "tiered storage", introducing yet another tier that forcespeople to decide what data goes where may be another challenge.
  • Your third card, Robert, is the Chariot, which represents "Speed, Determination,and Will". In some cases, solid state disk are faster for reading, but can be slower for writing. In the case of ahybrid drive, where the memory acts as a front-end cache, read-hits would be faster, but read-misses might be slower.While the idea of stopping the drives during inactivity will reduce power consumption, spinning up and slowing downthe disk may incur additional performance penalties. At the time of this post, the fastest disk system remains the IBM SAN Volume Controller, based on SPC-1 and SPC-2 benchmarks in excess of those published for other devices.
  • Your fourth card, Robert, is the Eight of Pentacles, which represents"Diligence, Hard work". The pentacles are coins with five-sided stars on them, and this often represents money.Our research team has projected that spinning disk will continue to be a viable and profitable storage media for at least anothereight years.
  • Your fifth and last card, Robert, is the World, which normallyrepresents "Accomplishment", but since it is turned upside down, the meaning is reversed to "Limitation". Some Hybriddisks, and some types of solid state memory in general, do have limitations in the number of write cycles they can handle. For thoseunhappy with the frequency and slowness for rebuilds on SATA disk may find similar problems with hybrid drives.For that reason, businesses may not trust using hybrid drives for their busiest, mission-critical applications, but certainlymight use it for archive data with lower write-cycle requirements.
The tarot cards are never wrong, but certainly interpretations of the cards can be.

technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 comments
5 views

Permalink

Comments

Tue May 22, 2007 08:03 PM

Debra, IBM has sold off its laptop division to a company called Lenovo. I am sure they are working on updating their designs to incorporate the latest technologies, but can't speak on their behalf on specifics related to hybrid or solid state drives.

Sat May 19, 2007 11:57 AM

I think what I'd most like to know is when/whether we'll see IBM selling notebooks using the new hard drive technology (either hybrid or solid-state). Are they currently in the works?

Fri December 22, 2006 09:16 AM

Woody,Thank you for the clarification and additional information. I have edited my post to include links to the SPC benchmark numbers so readers can make their own comparisons, and for clarity.

Thu December 21, 2006 09:17 PM

Thanks, Tony. Very creative. Nicest Christmas present I'll get this year.
Couple of points:1) Chris Evans says it much better, and more knowledgeably than I, on his blog at:http://storagearchitect.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-raid.html"The problem is, the drive is not involved in the rebuild process - it dumbly responds to the request from the controller to re-read all the data. What we need are more intelligent drives combined with more intelligent controllers; for example; why not have multiple interfaces to a single HDD? Use a hybrid drive with more onboard memory to cache reads while the heads are moving to obtain real data requests. Store that data in memory on the drive to be used for drive rebuilds. Secondly, why do we need to store all the data for all rebuilds across all drives? Why with a disk array of 16 drives can't we run multiple instances of 6+2 RAID across different sections of the drive?"
I would like to see that discussion joined.
2) I made this post at StorageMojo:http://storagemojo.com/?p=336,but to make it easier on anyone reading this comment I will repeat it here:“Why ZFS?”Montag, 18. Dezember 2006http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/2410-Why-ZFS.html[Article excerpt]“It´s really really cool that ZFS will be integrated into Leopard. When you read forums like digg or slashdot there seems to be an utter absence of creativity or knowledge, about the advantages someone gets by using ZFS in client operating systems.To get a view of the benefits, i will describe my workflows on hahdafang, my primary mac@home:”
“Economics of ZFS” from the same blog:http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/2413-Economics-of-ZFS.html[article referenced in the above post]“Paul Murphy posted a good article about ZFS economics in his blog.”[Source article]“ZFS, HW RAID, and expensive mis-apprehensions”Posted by Paul Murphy @ 12:15 amhttp://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=759[article excerpt]“Solaris 10 now ships with ZFS - and ZFS obsoletes both PC style RAID controllers and the external RAID controllers used with bigger systems.”
From my limited perspective, it appears that ZFS bypasses RAID and rebuild problems?
I once predicted that IBM would buy Sun. It's not too late.
Here's my Christmas present to you.I worked for years Implementing IT environments that used what I called "Rolling Down the Storage Hill". "Rolling Up" was possible but didn't happen very often. I based the "Rolling" on the ROI/TCO ratio. This Information is still really hard to get. One day I was pitching my "Rolling" solution to a client and he looked me in the eye and said, "That sounds an awful lot like ILM". I have never used "Rolling" again. Same solution, much nicer name.
I worked for years in obscurity developing what I knew would be the "Storage Revolution". I called it E2EIoD (End-to-End Information on Demand). I was pitching this to some knowledgeable people and one of them said, "That sounds an awful lot like SOA". Sure enough, IBM had beat me to the finish and done a better job.
I've still got my Amiga running OS/2.

Thu December 21, 2006 01:00 PM

Tony,
A few comments:
1. I think your post, insofar as it refers to Hybrid drives (mix of flash memory with hard drives), is accurate.2. IBM does indeed have the top SPC-1 results (by the way I am delighted to just see SPC discussed in a blog). I do appreciate your thoughts on why the Texas Memory Systems results are lower than IBMs, but I think you missed the real reason... the type of servers used in the testing. If we could possibly borrow the server that IBM used in its testing, I think we could make that fine IBM server look even better than your also excellent storage makes it look. Can you work that out for us?3. Not all solid state disks have write performance issues or write wear issues. Systems made with DDR RAM, such as ours, have dramatically better write performance than disk or flash and do not have wear issues like flash memory.4. Your first comment to max out memory in the server has two possible weaknesses. First, server memory is worthless where write performance is the number one bottleneck. Second, server memory in capacities similar to what solid state disks, such as ours, can provide can be more expensive per capacity, cannot be easily shared among multiple servers simultaneously, and almost always have to be thrown out when the server is replaced. An external solid state disk often has a lower cost per capacity than large memory in servers, can work in a SAN connected to multiple servers simultaneously, and does not have to be replaced if the server is upgraded.5. Regarding your second point, adding performance tiers for some businesses equals complexity. For other businesses, adding tiers equals performance and cost-effectiveness. The whole promise of ILM is that we don't have to be stuck with just three tiers of performance. In fact, I think your SVC is an excellent way to open up the enterprise to multiple storage tiers and yet manage this complexity from a single appliance.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Woody HutsellTexas Memory Systems

Thu December 21, 2006 04:12 AM

Tony, you write: "The fastest disk system remains the IBM SAN Volume Controller, with an SPC-1 and SPC-2 benchmarks in excess of those published by Sold-state-disk-manufacturer Texas Memory Systems, Inc."
That seems contrary to common sense. Could you explain please?Thanks,Chris.

Thu December 21, 2006 12:10 AM

Chris,It's true. The SAN Volume Controller (SVC) uses SDRAM with battery backup. The tested configuration runs an 8-node cluster, each node has dual Xeon processors and 8GB of SDRAM memory. The latest SPC-1 benchmark was 155,519 IOPS for 12TB configuration. By comparison, Texas Memory Systems tested their RAMsan-320 which came in at 112,491 IOPS for a small 68GB configuration.

As for SPC-2, the latest SVC benchmark is 4,544 MB per second. This workload tests large file transfers, large data base queries and Video on Demand workloads. SPC-2 doesn't show any results from Texas Memory Systems, and I suspect they may not have a large enough configuration to run it.

I don't know any details of the inside technology of the RAMsan-320, but it might have fewer processors, slower memory, fewer host adapters, slower ports, don't know.

The SVC has been around since 2003, we are on its fourth generation, has over 2,200 customers, and was engineered for optimal performance.