News
8/4/2008
04:48 PM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Enterprise Solid State Disk - Where Are We?

It seems like everyone is jumping into SSD (Solid State Disk) today. EMC, Sun, Hitachi, HP, and others have all made announcements about adopting SSD. As I discussed in an earlier entry, the numbers certainly make good conversation pieces, but where are we in terms of ma

It seems like everyone is jumping into SSD (Solid State Disk) today. EMC, Sun, Hitachi, HP, and others have all made announcements about adopting SSD. As I discussed in an earlier entry, the numbers certainly make good conversation pieces, but where are we in terms of market adoption?IDC recently wrote a report stating 70% compounded annual growth rate over the next five years. That makes for a very hot market. Or are we somewhere else with market adoption? Growing, but at a much slower pace. If adoption is slower, it will tend to benefit the legacy SSD companies like Solid Data and Texas Memory Systems, not the larger system vendors. These companies are all pretty lean and mean; any growth in the market is good for them.

To determine market growth, you have to look at what people can or want to do with an enterprise SSD. As you can guess, performance is the key and often only issue when deciding if you should deploy a SSD. For the price delta of SSD vs. spinning disk, that performance gain has to be significant vs. what can be had with today's advanced disk technologies.

Also, the application has to actually be able to take advantage of the speed available to it. For now, that comes down to a very finite number of applications which are directly responsible for revenue production within an organization. Almost always the entire application can't take advantage of the performance offering of SSD, only a few very active hot files. These hot files end up on SSD's. In general, these files are manually moved to the SSD by a savvy system or database administrator. It's not very fancy nor very automated, but it works and delivers often very impressive results. improving overall application performance while at the same time reducing the number of servers required by the application. These workloads tend to be small enough that they typically are being placed on DRAM-based, not Flashed SSD's. Why? From an enterprise perspective, they are by far the most commonly deployed type of SSD, Flash-based systems just came into full light over the last 12 months. There are some technical reasons as well; although being more expensive, DRAM delivers consistent random I/O performance across both reads and writes. Flash-based systems, on the other hand, offer solid performance in read operations but take a significant hit on write performance, compared with DRAM, although they're still faster than hard disk writes.

Despite this, looking forward into the next year, Flash SSD's, because of pricing advantage, will provide most of the unit growth in the SSD space and as long as they are used in the correct, read heavy workload, will still make a significant improvement to performance. The comparison between the two types of SSD technologies are important because most of the storage system suppliers today are using Flash-based technology, and they don't have the option of offering DRAM when it makes sense to. This will require that these legacy storage solution providers gain expertise in this game-changing performance solution and that they advise the customer correctly when they might be better off with a DRAM-based solution vs. a Flash-based solution. Improving the performance of key applications will still be the primary motivator, and is an area where the SSD specialists will have a distinct advantage.

Deploying SSD will require expertise not only from the SSD supplier but also from the customer. Each solution will have to be examined in a linear fashion to make sure the right type and quantity of that technology is applied. While the price can now be much more easily justified against the performance requirements, this analog deployment style will make a market growth more modest. I don't think we will see the 70% CAGR until we see better integration at the storage system level make this a more automated process. Until SSD-based systems are so large and so inexpensive that the price difference is negligible, we will need storage solutions that will automatically move hot blocks of data in and out of the SSD.

We will detail that in an upcoming entry.

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss.

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is founder of Storage Switzerland, an analyst firm focused on the virtualization and storage marketplaces. It provides strategic consulting and analysis to storage users, suppliers, and integrators. An industry veteran of more than 25 years, Crump has held engineering and sales positions at various IT industry manufacturers and integrators. Prior to Storage Switzerland, he was CTO at one of the nation's largest integrators.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Flash Poll
Current Issue
Cartoon
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
DevOps’ Impact on Application Security
Managing the interdependency between software and infrastructure is a thorny challenge. Often, it’s a “developers are from Mars, systems engineers are from Venus” situation.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-1544
Published: 2014-07-23
Use-after-free vulnerability in the CERT_DestroyCertificate function in libnss3.so in Mozilla Network Security Services (NSS) 3.x, as used in Firefox before 31.0, Firefox ESR 24.x before 24.7, and Thunderbird before 24.7, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via vectors that trigger cer...

CVE-2014-1547
Published: 2014-07-23
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the browser engine in Mozilla Firefox before 31.0, Firefox ESR 24.x before 24.7, and Thunderbird before 24.7 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-1548
Published: 2014-07-23
Multiple unspecified vulnerabilities in the browser engine in Mozilla Firefox before 31.0 and Thunderbird before 31.0 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via unknown vectors.

CVE-2014-1549
Published: 2014-07-23
The mozilla::dom::AudioBufferSourceNodeEngine::CopyFromInputBuffer function in Mozilla Firefox before 31.0 and Thunderbird before 31.0 does not properly allocate Web Audio buffer memory, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (buffer overflow and applica...

CVE-2014-1550
Published: 2014-07-23
Use-after-free vulnerability in the MediaInputPort class in Mozilla Firefox before 31.0 and Thunderbird before 31.0 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (heap memory corruption) by leveraging incorrect Web Audio control-message ordering.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Where do information security startups come from? More important, how can I tell a good one from a flash in the pan? Learn how to separate ITSec wheat from chaff in this episode.