News
6/12/2008
03:05 PM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Flash Vs. RAM Solid State Disks

As major vendors ready for entry into the solid-state disk (SSD) market with Flash memory systems, don't count out the traditional RAM SSD. Even though RAM SSDs are more expensive per capacity, companies like Texas Memory Systems are seeing continued growth in RAM-based SSD systems. Why? RAM SSDs have two advantages: speed and reliability.

As major vendors ready for entry into the solid-state disk (SSD) market with Flash memory systems, don't count out the traditional RAM SSD. Even though RAM SSDs are more expensive per capacity, companies like Texas Memory Systems are seeing continued growth in RAM-based SSD systems. Why? RAM SSDs have two advantages: speed and reliability.In the SSD market, speed is king and for customers needing to squeeze every ounce of I/O out of their systems, RAM SSD is still the only way to go. The answer is in the numbers. For comparison, a typical mechanical hard disk drive does 4- to 5-millisecond reads and writes and can sustain about 150 to 300 random I/O's per second.

The typical Flash SSD completes reads in about 200 microseconds (0.2 milliseconds) and 100,000 random read I/O's per second; very impressive when compared with disk. In read-heavy applications, you will see a significant performance increase. Writes, however, are as high as 2 milliseconds and can sustain up to 25,000 random write I/O's per second. While you will still see a performance increase on writes with some Flash SSD vs. hard disks, they're most impressive from a read-performance perspective.

RAM SSD, on the other hand, is significantly faster at both read and write operations. It performs 15-microsecond (0.015 milliseconds) reads and writes and 400,000 random I/O's per second. Significant performance improvement can be seen on both types of operations. The challenge with RAM SSD is that you are dealing with smaller capacity -- 128 GB is typical, but smaller sizes aren't uncommon. You are looking for applications that have specific files that can be moved to the SSD; redo logs, undo segments, indices, and frequently accessed tables are great examples.

Flash SSD has another write-related issue; it can only handle so many. The typical range for Flash SSD is around 1 million to 5 million write cycles. For most applications, this is many years worth of writes. Most enterprise Flash SSDs are made up of multiple Flash modules. Having multiple Flash modules is essential to delivering maximum bandwidth and high availability through RAID protection. Flash SSDs aren't a good fit for latency-sensitive, write-intensive applications; for example, accelerating redo logs, undo segments, and enterprise messaging.

For many applications, Flash SSDs will offer significant and affordable performance increases, but when you need more performance or have legitimate concerns about a high-write application, RAM SSDs are the way to go.

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
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
Enterprises today have a wide range of third-party options to help improve their defenses, including MSSPs, auditing and penetration testing, and DDoS protection. But are there situations in which a service provider might actually increase risk?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-5084
Published: 2015-08-02
The Siemens SIMATIC WinCC Sm@rtClient and Sm@rtClient Lite applications before 01.00.01.00 for Android do not properly store passwords, which allows physically approximate attackers to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2015-5352
Published: 2015-08-02
The x11_open_helper function in channels.c in ssh in OpenSSH before 6.9, when ForwardX11Trusted mode is not used, lacks a check of the refusal deadline for X connections, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via a connection outside of the permitted time ...

CVE-2015-5537
Published: 2015-08-02
The SSL layer of the HTTPS service in Siemens RuggedCom ROS before 4.2.0 and ROX II does not properly implement CBC padding, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-3566.

CVE-2015-5600
Published: 2015-08-02
The kbdint_next_device function in auth2-chall.c in sshd in OpenSSH through 6.9 does not properly restrict the processing of keyboard-interactive devices within a single connection, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct brute-force attacks or cause a denial of service (CPU consumptio...

CVE-2015-1009
Published: 2015-07-31
Schneider Electric InduSoft Web Studio before 7.1.3.5 Patch 5 and Wonderware InTouch Machine Edition through 7.1 SP3 Patch 4 use cleartext for project-window password storage, which allows local users to obtain sensitive information by reading a file.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What’s the future of the venerable firewall? We’ve invited two security industry leaders to make their case: Join us and bring your questions and opinions!