Really? Disk is Dead? From Violin?

A catchy email from one of the forums I subscribed to, caught my attention. It goes something like “…Grateful … Disk is Dead“. Here the blog from Kevin Doherty, a Senior Account Manager at Violin Memory.

Coming from Violin Memory, this is pretty obvious because they have an agenda against HDDs. They don’t use any disks at all …. in any form factor. They use VIMMs (Violin Inline Memory Modules), something no vendor in the industry use today.


I recalled my blog in 2012, titled “Violin pulling the strings“. It came up here in South Asia with much fan fare, lots of razzmatazz and there was plenty of excitement. I was even invited to their product training at Ingram Micro in Singapore and met their early SE, Mike Thompson. Mike is still there I believe, but the EMC veteran in Singapore whom I mentioned in my previous blog, left almost a year later after joining. So was the ex-Sun, General Manager of Violin Memory in Singapore.

Continue reading

Praying to the hypervisor God

I was reading a great article by Frank Denneman about storage intelligence moving up the stack. It was pretty much in line with what I have been observing in the past 18 months or so, about the storage pendulum having swung back to DAS (direct attached storage). To be more precise, the DAS form factor I am referring to are physical server hardware that houses many disk drives.

Like it or not, the hypervisor has become the center of the universe in the IT space. VMware has become the indomitable force in the hypervisor technology, with Microsoft Hyper-V playing catch-up. The seismic shift of these 2 hypervisor technologies are leading storage vendors to place them on to the altar and revering them as deities. The others, with the likes of Xen and KVM, and to lesser extent Solaris Containers aren’t really worth mentioning.

This shift, as the pendulum swings from networked storage back to internal “direct-attached” storage are dictated by 4 main technology factors:

  • The x86 server architecture
  • Software-defined
  • Scale-out architecture
  • Flash-based storage technology

Anyone remember Thumper? Not the Disney character from the Bambi movie!


When the SunFire X4500 (aka Thumper) was first released in (intermission: checking Wiki for the right year) in 2006, I felt that significant wound inflicted in the networked storage industry. Instead of the usual 4-8 hard disk drives in the all the industry servers at the time, the X4500 4U chassis housed 48 hard disk drives. The design and architecture were so astounding to me, I even went and bought a 1U SunFire X4150 for my personal server collection. Such was my adoration for Sun’s technology at the time.

Continue reading

Not all SSDs are the same

Happy Lunar New Year! The Chinese around world has just ushered in the Year of the Water Dragon yesterday. To all my friends and family, and readers of my blog, I wish you a prosperous and auspicious Chinese New Year!

Over the holidays, I have been keeping up with the progress of Solid State Drives (SSDs). I am sure many of us are mesmerized by SSDs and the storage vendors are touting the best of SSDs have to offer. But let me tell you one thing – you are probably getting the least of what the best SSDs have to offer. You might be puzzled why I say things like this.

Let me share with a common sales pitch. Most (if not all) storage vendors will tout performance (usually IOPS) as the greatest benefits of SSDs. The performance numbers have to be compared to something, and that something is your regular spinning Hard Disk Drives (HDDs). The slowest SSDs in terms of IOPS is about 10-15x faster than the HDDs. A single SSD can at least churn 5,000 IOPS when compared to the fastest 15,000 RPM HDDs, which churns out about 200 IOPS (depending on HDD vendors). Therefore, the slowest SSDs can be 20-25x faster than the fastest HDDs, when measured in IOPS.

But the intent of this blogger is to share with you more about SSDs. There’s more to know because SSDs are not built the same. There are write-bias SSDs, read-bias SSDs; there are SLC (single level cell) and MLC (multi level cell) SSDs and so on. How do you differentiate them if Vendor A touts their SSDs and Vendor B touts their SSDs as well? You are not comparing SSDs and HDDs anymore. How do you know what questions to ask when they show you their performance statistics?

SNIA has recently released a set of methodology called “Solid State Storage (SSS) Performance Testing Specifications (PTS)” that helps customers evaluate and compare the SSD performance from a vendor-neutral perspective. There is also a whitepaper related to SSS PTS. This is something very important because we have to continue to educate the community about what is right and what is wrong.

In a recent webcast, the presenters from the SNIA SSS TWG (Technical Working Group) mentioned a few questions that I  think we as vendors and customers should think about when working with an SSD sales pitch. I thought I share them with you.

  • Was the performance testing done at the SSD device level or at the file system level?
  • Was the SSD pre-conditioned before the testing? If so, how?
  • Was the performance results taken at a steady state?
  • How much data was written during the testing?
  • Where was the data written to?
  • What data pattern was tested?
  • What was the test platform used to test the SSDs?
  • What hardware or software package(s) used for the testing?
  • Was the HBA bandwidth, queue depth and other parameters sufficient to test the SSDs?
  • What type of NAND Flash was used?
  • What is the target workload?
  • What was the percentage weight of the mix of Reads and Writes?
  • Are there warranty life design issue?

I thought that these questions were very relevant in understanding SSDs’ performance. And I also got to know that SSDs behave differently throughout the life stages of the device. From a performance point of view, there are 3 distinct performance life stages

  • Fresh out of the box (FOB)
  • Transition
  • Steady State


As you can see from the graph below, a SSD, fresh out of the box (FOB) displayed considerable performance numbers. Over a period of time (the graph shown minutes), it transitioned into a mezzanine stage of lower IOPS and finally, it normalized to the state called the Steady State. The Steady State is the desirable test range that will give the most accurate type of IOPS numbers. Therefore, it is important that your storage vendor’s performance numbers should be taken during this life stage.

Another consideration when understanding the SSDs’ performance numbers are what type of tests used? The test could be done at the file system level or at the device level. As shown in the diagram below, the test numbers could be taken from many different elements through the stack of the data path.


Performance for cached data would given impressive numbers but it is not accurate. File system performance will not be useful because the data travels through different layers, masking the true performance capability of the SSDs. Therefore, SNIA’s performance is based on a synthetic device level test to achieve consistency and a more accurate IOPS numbers.

There are many other factors used to determine the most relevant performance numbers. The SNIA PTS test has 4 main test suite that addresses different aspects of the SSD’s performance. They are:

  • Write Saturation test
  • Latency test
  • IOPS test
  • Throughput test

The SSS PTS would be able to reveal which is a better SSD. Here’s a sample report on latency.

Once again, it is important to know and not to take vendors’ numbers in verbatim. As the SSD market continue to grow, the responsibility lies on both side of the fence – the vendor and the customer.


Betcha don’t encrypt your disks

At the Internet Alliance event this morning, someone from Computerworld gave me a copy of their latest issue. The headline was “Security Incidents Soar”, with the details of the half-year review by CyberSecurity Malaysia.

Typically, the usual incidents list evolve around spam, intrusions, frauds, viruses and so on. However, storage always seems to be missing. As I see it, storage security doesn’t sit well with the security guys. In fact, storage is never the sexy thing and it is usually the IPS, IDS, anti-virus and firewall that get the highlights. So, when we talk about storage security, there is so little to talk about. In fact, in my almost 20-years of experience, storage security was only brought up ONCE!

In security, the most valuable piece of asset is data and no matter where the data goes, it always lands on …. STORAGE! That is why storage security could be one of the most overlooked piece in security. Fortunately, SNIA already has this covered. In SNIA’s Solid State Storage Initiative (SSSI), one aspect that was worked on was Self Encrypted Drives (SED).

SED is not new. As early as 2007, Seagate already marketed encrypted hard disk drives. In 2009, Seagate introduced enterprise-level encrypted hard disk drives. And not surprisingly, other manufacturers followed. Today, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung, and Western Digital have encrypted hard disk drives.

But there were prohibitive factors that dampened the adoption of self-encrypted drives. First of all, it was the costs. It was expensive a few years ago. There was (and still is) a lack of knowledge between the hardware of Self Encrypted Drives (SED) and software-based encryption. As the SED were manufactured, some had proprietary implementations that did not do their part to promote the adoption of SEDs.

As data travels from one infrastructure to another, data encryption can be implemented at different points. As the diagram below shows,


encryption can be put in place at the software level, the OS level, at the HBA, the network itself. It can also happen at the switch (network or fabric), at the storage array controller or at the hard disk level.

EMC multipathing software, PowerPath, has an encryption facility to ensure that data is encryption on its way from the HBA to the EMC CLARiiON storage controllers.

The “bump-in-the-wire” appliance is a bridge device that helps in composing encryption to the data before it reaches the storage. Recall that NetApp had a FIPS 140 certified product called Decru DataFort, which basically encrypted NAS and SAN traffic en-route to the NetApp FAS storage array.

And according to SNIA SSSI member, Tom Coughlin, SED makes more sense that software-based security. How does SED work?

First of all, SED works with 2 main keys:

  • Authentication Key (AK)
  • Drive Encryption Key (DEK)

The DEK is the most important component, because it is a symmetric key that encrypts and decrypts data on the HDDs or SSDs. This DEK is not for any Tom (sorry Tom), Dick and Harry. In order to gain access to DEK, one has to be authenticated and the authentication is completed by having the right authentication key (AK). Usually the AK is based on a 128/26-bit AES or DES and DEK is of a higher bit range. The diagram below shows the AK and DEK in action:

Because SED occurs at the drive level, it is significantly simpler to implement, with lower costs as well. For software-based encryption, one has to set up some form of security architecture. IPSec comes to mind. This is not only more complex, but also more costly to implement as well. Since it is software, the degree of security compromise is higher, meaning, the security model is less secure when compared to SED. The DEK of the SED does not leave the array, and if the DEK is implemented within the disk enclosure or the security module of SoC (System-on-Chip), this makes even more secure that software-based encryption. Also, the DEK is away from the CPU and memory, thus removing these components as a potential attack vendor that could compromise the data on the disks drives.

Furthermore, software-based encryption takes up CPU cycles, thus slows down the overall performance. In the Tom Coughlin study, based on both SSDs and HDDs, the performance of SED outperforms software-based encryption every time. Here’s a table from that study:

Another security concern is about data erasure. According to an old IBM study, about 90% of the retired HDDs still has data that is readable. That means that data erasure techniques used are either not implemented properly or simply not good enough. For us in the storage industry, an effective but time consuming technique is to overwrite the entire disks with 1s and reusing it. But to hackers, there are ways to “undelete” these bits and make the data readable again.

SED provides crypto erasure that is both effective and very quick. Since the data encryption key (DEK) was used to encrypt and decrypt data, the DEK can be changed and renewed in split seconds, making the content of the disk drive unreadable. The diagram below shows how crypto erasure works:

Data security is already at its highest alert and SEDs are going to be a key component in the IT infrastructure. The open and common standards are coming together, thanks to efforts to many bodies including SNIA. At the same time, product certifications are coming up and more importantly, the price of SED has come to the level that it is almost on par with normal, non-encrypted drives.

Hackers and data thieves are getting smarter all the time and yet, the security of the most important place of where the data rest is the least considered. SNIA and other bodies hope to create more awareness and seek greater adoption of self encrypted drives. We hope you will help spread the word too. Betcha thinking twice now about encrypting your data  on your disk drives now.

Playing with NetApp … After Rightsizing

It has been a tough week for me and that’s why I haven’t been writing much this week. So, right now, right after dinner, I am back on keyboard again, continuing where I have left off with NetApp’s usable capacity.

A blog and a half ago, I wrote about the journey of getting NetApp’s usable capacity and stopping up to the point of the disk capacity after rightsizing. We ended with the table below.

Manufacturer Marketing Capacity NetApp Rightsized Capacity
36GB 34.0/34.5GB*
72GB 68GB
144GB 136GB
300GB 272GB
600GB 560GB
1TB 847GB
2TB 1.69TB
3TB 2.48TB

* The size of 34.5GB was for the Fibre Channel Zone Checksum mechanism employed prior to ONTAP version 6.5 of 512 bytes per sector. After ONTAP 6.5, block checksum of 520 bytes per sector was employed for greater data integrity protection and resiliency.

At this stage, the next variable to consider is RAID group sizing. NetApp’s ONTAP employs 2 types of RAID level – RAID-4 and the default RAID-DP (a unique implementation of RAID-6, employing 2 dedicated disks as double parity).

Before all the physical hard disk drives (HDDs) are pooled into a logical construct called an aggregate (which is what ONTAP’s FlexVol is about), the HDDs are grouped into a RAID group. A RAID group is also a logical construct, in which it combines all HDDs into data or parity disks. The RAID group is the building block of the Aggregate.

So why a RAID group? Well, first of all, (although likely possible), it is not prudent to group a large number of HDDs into a single group with only 2 parity drives supporting the RAID. Even though one can maximize the allowable, aggregated capacity from the HDDs, the data reconstruction or data resilvering operation following a HDD failure (disks are supposed to fail once in a while, remember?) would very much slow the RAID operations to a trickle because of the large number of HDDs the operation has to address. Therefore, it is best to spread them out into multiple RAID groups with a recommended fixed number of HDDs per RAID group.

RAID group is important because it is used to balance a few considerations

  • Performance in recovery if there is a disk reconstruction or resilvering
  • Combined RAID performance and availability through a Mean Time Between Data Loss (MTBDL) formula

Different ONTAP versions (and also different disk types) have different number of HDDs to constitute a RAID group. For ONTAP 8.0.1, the table below are its recommendation.


So, given a large pool of HDDs, the NetApp storage administrator has to figure out the best layout and the optimal number of HDDs to get to the capacity he/she wants. And there is also a best practice to set aside 2 HDDs for a RAID-DP configuration with every 30 or so HDDs. Also, it is best practice to take the default recommended RAID group size most of the time.

I would presume that this is all getting very confusing, so let me show that with an example. Let’s use the common 2TB SATA HDD and let’s assume the customer has just bought a 100 HDDs FAS6000. From the table above, the default (and recommended) RAID group size is 14. The customer wants to have maximum usable capacity as well. In a step-by-step guide,

  1. Consider the hot sparing best practice. The customer wants to ensure that there will always be enough spares, so using the rule-of-thumb of 2 HDDs per 30 HDDs, 6 disks are set aside as hot spares. That leaves 94 HDDs from the initial 100 HDDs.
  2. There is a root volume, rootvol, and it is recommended to put this into an aggregate of its own so that it gets maximum performance and availability. To standardize, the storage administrator configures 3 HDDs as 1 RAID group to create the rootvol aggregate, aggr0. Even though the total capacity used by the rootvol is just a few hundred GBs, it is not recommended to place data into rootvol. Of course, this situation cannot be avoided in most of the FAS2000 series, where a smaller HDDs count are sold and implemented. With 3 HDDs used up as rootvol, the customer now has 91 HDDs.
  3. With 91 HDDs, and using the default RAID group size of 14, for the next aggregate of aggr1, the storage administrator can configure 6 x full RAID group of 14 HDDs (6 x 14 = 84) and 1 x partial RAID group of 7. (91/14 = 6 remainder 7). And 84 + 7 = 91 HDDs.
  4. RAID-DP requires 2 disks per RAID group to be used as parity disks. Since there are a total of 7 RAID groups from the 91 HDDs, 14 HDDs are parity disks, leaving 77 HDDs as data disks.

This is where the rightsized capacity comes back into play again. 77 x 2TB HDDs is really 77 x 1.69TB = 130.13TB from an initial of 100 x 2TB = 200TB.

If you intend to create more aggregates (in our example here, we have only 2 aggregates – aggr0 and aggr1), there will be more consideration for RAID group sizing and parity disks, further reducing the usable capacity.

This is just part 2 of our “Playing with NetApp Capacity” series. We have not arrived at the final usable capacity yet and I will further share that with you over the weekend.

Using simple MTBF to determine reliability to Finance

The other day, a prospect was requesting quotations after quotations from a friend of mine to make so-called “apple-to-apple” comparison with another storage vendor. But it was difficult to have that sort of comparisons because one guy would propose SAS, and the other SATA and so on. I was roped in by my friend to help. So in the end I asked this prospect, which 3 of these criteria matters to him most – Performance, Capacity or Reliability.

He gave me an answer and the reliability criteria was leading his requirement. Then he asked me if I could help determine in a “quick-and-dirty manner” by using MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of the disks to convince his finance about the question of reliability.

Well, most HDD vendors published their MTBF as a measuring stick to determine the reliability of their manufactured disks. MTBF is by no means accurate but it is useful to define HDD reliability in a crude manner. If you have seen the components that goes into a HDD, you would be amazed that the HDD components go through a tremendously stressed environment. The Read/Write head operating at a flight height (head gap)  between the platters thinner than a human hair and the servo-controlled technology maintains the constant, never-lagging 7200/10,000/15,000 RPM days-after-days, months-after-months, years-after-years. And it yet, we seem to take the HDD for granted, rarely thinking how much technology goes into it on a nanoscale. That’s technology at its best – bringing something so complex to make it so simple for all of us.

I found that the Seagate Constellation.2 Enterprise-class 3TB 7200 RPM disk MTBF is 1.2 million hours while the Seagate Cheetah 600GB 10,000 RPM disk MTBF is 1.5 million hours. So, the Cheetah is about 30% more reliable than the Constellation.2, right?

Wrong! There are other factors involved. In order to achieve 3TB usable, a RAID 1 (average write performance, very good read performance) would require 2 units of 3TB 7200 RPM disks. On the other hand, using a 10, 000 RPM disks, with the largest shipping capacity of 600GB, you would need 10 units of such HDDs. RAID-DP (this is NetApp by the way) would give average write performance (better than RAID 1 in some cases) and very good read performance (for sequential access).

So, I broke down the above 2 examples to this prospect (to achieve 3TB usable)

  1. Seagate Constellation.2 3TB 7200 RPM HDD MTBF is 1.2 million hours x 2 units
  2. Seagate Cheetah 600GB 10,000 RPM HDD MTBF is 1.5 million hours x 10 units

By using a simple calculation of

    RF (Reliability Factor) = MTBF/#HDDs

the prospect will be able to determine which of the 2 HDD types above could be more reliable.

In case #1, RF is 600,000 hours and in case #2, the RF is 125,000 hours. Suddenly you can see that the Constellation.2 HDDs which has a lower MTBF has a higher RF compared to the Cheetah HDDs. Quick and simple, isn’t it?

Note that I did not use the SAS versus SATA technology into the mixture because they don’t matter. SAS and SATA are merely data channels that drives data in and out of the spinning HDDs. So, folks, don’t be fooled that a SAS drive is more reliable than a SATA drive. Sometimes, they are just the same old spinning HDDs. In fact, the mentioned Seagate Constellation.2 HDD (3TB, 7200 RPM) has both SAS and SATA interface.

Of course, this is just one factor in the whole Reliability universe. Other factors such as RAID-level, checksum, CRC, single or dual-controller also determines the reliability of the entire storage array.

In conclusion, we all know that the MTBF alone does not determine the reliability of the solution the prospect is about to purchase. But this is one way you can use to help the finance people to get the idea of reliability.

Having fun with your storage vendor and get the information to fit your data center

I was on my way to Singapore yesterday. At the departure lounge, I just started reading “Data Center Storage” by Hubbert Smith (ISBN#: 978-1439834879) yesterday and I learned something very interesting immediately. Then my thoughts started stirring and I thought I have a bit of fun with what I have learned from the book.

The single, most significant piece of the storage solution is the hard disk drive (HDD). Regardless of SAN or NAS protocols, the data is stored and served from the hard disk drives. And there are 4 key metrics of a HDD, which are

  • Price
  • Performance
  • Capacity
  • Power

As storage professionals, we are often challenged to deliver the best storage solution to meet the customer’s requirements. Therefore, it is not about providing the fastest IOPS or the best availability or the lowest price. It is about providing the best balance of the 4 key metrics above.

The 4 metrics are of little help when they are standalone but if they are combined in relation to each other, you as a customer, can obtain some measurable ratios that will be useful to size for a requirements, keeping the balance of the 4 key metrics better defined rather than getting fluff and BS from the storage vendor.

In the book, the following table was displayed and I found it to be extremely useful:

Key Ratios for HDDs
Performance/Price IOPS/$
Performance/Power IOPS/watt
Capacity/Price GB/$
Capacity/Power GB/watt

The relational ratios in red are going to be useful in determining the right type of storage for the requirement. And we will come back to this later. We begin our quest to obtain the information that we want – Performance, Capacity, Price, Power.

Capacity is the easy one because it is a given fact the size of the HDDs.

IOPS for each type of HDDs is also easy to obtain. See table below:

Disk Type RPM IOPS Range
SATA 5,400 50-75
SATA 7,200 75-100
SAS/FC 10,000 100-125
SAS/FC 15,000 175-200
SSD N/A 5,000-10,000

The watt of each HDDs is also quite easy. Just ask the vendor to give the specification of the HDDs.

The pricing part would be part where we can have a bit of fun with the storage vendor. Usually, storage vendors do not release the price of a single HDD in the quotation. The total price is lumped together with everything else, making it harder to decipher the price. So, what can the customer do?

Easy. Get 4-5 quotations from the storage vendor, each with different type of HDDs. This is the customer’s rights. For example, I have created several fictitious quotations, each with a different type of HDDs/SSD and pricing.

Quote #1 (SATA 7200 RPM)


Quote #2 (SAS 10,000 RPM)


Quote #3 (SAS 15,000 RPM)


Quote #4 (SSD)


From the 4 quotations, we cannot ascertain the true price of a single disk, but we can assume that the 12 units HDDs/SSDs take up 50% of the entire quotation. With all things being equal, especially the quantity of 12, we can establish the very rough estimate of the price. Having fun asking the storage vendor to run around with the quotations is the added bonus.

But we can derive the following figures (rough estimates but useful when we apply them to the key ratios above)

1TB SATA = 3333.33; 300GB 10,000 RPM SAS = 5000.00; 300GB 15,000 RPM SAS = 6250.00; 100GB SSD = 10416.66

When we juxtapose the information that we have collected i.e. price, performance and capacity (ok, I am skipping power/watt because I am lazy to find out), we come up with a table below:

In the boxed area, we can now easily determine which HDDs/SSDs that give the best value for money either Performance/$ or Capacity/$. The higher the key ratio, the better the value.

From this aspect, the customer can now determine methodically which type of disk he should invest into, in order to get the best value.

This is just a very simplistic method to find the value of the storage solution to be purchased. Bear in mind that there are many other factors to consider as well, such as rack unit height, total power consumption, storage efficiency, data protection and many more.

I am not taking credit for what Hufferd Smith has proposed. All kudos to him but I am using his method to apply to what is relevant to us on the field.

In conclusion, the customer won’t be baffled and confused thinking that they got the best deal at lowest price or fastest performance. This crude method can help turn perception into something that is more concrete and analytical. It’s time we, as customer, know our rights, and know what we are buying into and have a bit of fun too with the storage vendor.

Solid State Drives … are they reliable?

There’s been a lot of questions about Solid State Drives (SSD), aka Enterprise Flash Drives (EFD) by some vendors. Are they less reliable than our 10K or 15K RPM hard disk drives (HDDs)? I was asked this question in the middle of the stage when I was presenting the topic of Green Storage 3 weeks ago.

Well, the usual answer from the typical techie is … “It depends”.

We all fear the unknown and given the limited knowledge we have about SSDs (they are fairly new in the enterprise storage market), we tend to be drawn more to the negatives than the positives of what SSDs are and what they can be. I, for one, believe that SSDs have more positives and over time, we will grow to accept that this is all part of what the IT evolution. IT has always evolved into something better, stronger, faster, more reliable and so on. As famously quoted by Jeff Goldblum’s character Dr. Ian Malcolm, in the movie Jurassic Park I, “Life finds a way …”, IT will always find a way to be just that.

SSDs are typically categorized into MLCs (multi-level cells) and SLCs (single-level cells). They have typically predictable life expectancy ranging from tens of thousands of writes to more than a million writes per drive. This, by no means, is a measure of reliability of the SSDs versus the HDDs. However, SSD controllers and drives employ various techniques to enhance the durability of the drives. A common method is to balance the I/O accesses to the disk block to adapt the I/O usage patterns which can prolong the lifespan of the disk blocks (and subsequently the drives itself) and also ensure performance of the drive does not lag since the I/O is more “spread-out” in the drive. This is known as “wear-leveling” algorithm.

Most SSDs proposed by enterprise storage vendors are MLCs to meet the market price per IOP/$/GB demand because SLC are definitely more expensive for higher durability. Also MLCs have higher BER (bit-error-rate) and it is known than MLCs have 1 BER per 10,000 writes while SLCs have 1 BER per 100,000 writes.

But the advantage of SSDs clearly outweigh HDDs. Fast access (much lower latency) is one of the main advantages. Higher IOPS is another one. SSDs can provide from several thousand IOPS to more than 1 million IOPS when compared to enterprise HDDs. A typical 7,200 RPM SATA drive has less than 120 IOPS while a 15,000 RPM Fibre Channel or SAS drive ranges from 130-200 IOPS. That IOPS advantage is definitely a vast differentiator when comparing SSDs and HDDs.

We are also seeing both drive-format and card-format SSDs in the market. The drive-format type are typically in the 2.5″ and 3.5″ profile and they tend to fit into enterprise storage systems as “disk drives”. They are known to provide capacity. On the other hand, there are also card-format type of SSDs, that fit into a PCIe card that is inserted into host systems. These tend to address the performance requirement of systems and applications. The well known PCIe vendors are Fusion-IO which is in the high-end performance market and NetApp which peddles the PAM (Performance Access Module) card in its filers. The PAM card has been renamed as FlashCache. Rumour has it that EMC will be coming out with a similar solution soon.

Another to note is that SSDs can be read-biased or write-biased. Most SSDs in the market tend to be more read-biased, published with high read IOPS, not write IOPS. Therefore, we have to be prudent to know what out there. This means that some solution, such as the NetApp FlashCache, is more suitable for heavy-read I/O rather than writes I/O. The FlashCache addresses a large segment of the enterprise market because most applications are heavy on reads than writes.

SSDs have been positioned as Tier 0 layer in the Automated Storage Tiering segment of Enterprise Storage. Vendors such as Dell Compellent, HP 3PAR and also EMC FAST2 position themselves with enhanced tiering techniques to automated LUN and sub-LUN tiering and customers have been lapping up this feature like little puppies.

However, an up-and-coming segment for SSDs usage is positioning the SSDs as extended read or write cache to the existing memory of the systems. NetApp’s Flashcache is a PCIe solution that is basically an extended read cache. An interesting feature of Oracle Solaris ZFS called Hybrid Storage Pool allows the creation of read and write cache using SSDs. The Sun fellas even come up with cool names – ReadZilla and LogZilla – for this Hybrid Storage Pool features.

Basically, I have poured out what I know about SSDs (so far) and I intend to learn more about it. SNIA (Storage Networking Industry Association) has a Technical Working Group for Solid State Storage. I advise the readers to check it out.