News
10/29/2013
01:39 PM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Quick Guide To Flash Storage Latency Wars

Because latency is the key performance differentiator in server-side flash, SSD, PCIe and memory bus flash storage vendors are competing on speed.

Server-side flash is all about performance, and the key performance differentiator is latency. Latency is the time required to complete a transaction between a host and a storage system, such as a read or write operation. As a result, a "latency war" has broken out in the flash community about the best way to reduce flash latency.

Latency actually has several levels. The first level is the time it takes the media to position and be ready to respond to an I/O request. With a hard drive, this latency was the end of the discussion, as the milliseconds it took for a hard drive to get in position overshadowed any other latency in the storage communication chain.

Solid state disk (SSD) drives -- which are flash inside a hard drive container -- eliminated that device latency. SSDs can put themselves in position instantly since they have no moving parts, no platters to rotate. But that exposed other areas of latency in the storage protocol stack. For example, the time it takes for the I/O to work its way through the overhead of SCSI became noticeable.

This led to the introduction and rapid adoption of PCIe-based flash. Most of these cards eliminated the storage protocol stack altogether. The communication was direct to the application or operating system over the PCIe bus. Eliminating the storage protocol stack meant that special drivers had to be created for the various operating systems that a data center might have.

Vendors then introduced API sets that would allow users to write directly to the PCIe flash card from within the application for a further reduction in latency, not only avoiding the storage I/O stack but also avoiding the operating system itself.

What PCIe began to show, though, was that there was another level of latency. The PCIe bus itself. The PCIe bus routes through a motherboard-based fabric that allows multiple cards to share PCIe bandwidth. Some higher end servers will have multiple PCIe hubs in order to better route data. But even a high-end server when burdened with lots of I/O can become PCIe bottlenecked and lead to latency. (Remember that PCIe supports more than storage I/O.)

The next tier in latency elimination is to eliminate the PCIe bus altogether. Several vendors are introducing memory-bus-based flash storage. These flash storage devices come in a memory DIMM form factor and can act as storage with a device driver, similar to a PCIe SSD. Even more interesting, with a tweak to server system BIOS, it can act as main memory to the server. Imagine 400 GBs of "RAM" via flash on a single DIMM. Using the memory bus provides even more I/O channels and greater bandwidth; it was, after all, designed to support DRAM.

In both implementation modes, the use cases are very interesting. The ability to create very dense servers with terabytes (if not petabytes) of flash capacity in a 1U system changes the data center design game quite a bit.

There is no single perfect solution, as SSD, PCIe flash and memory flash all have their ideal use cases, and many data centers may have a mixture of all three. Designing applications for extreme high performance with almost zero latency is now reality. But their use is not limited to the performance fringe. For example imagine using these technologies to design a single physical server to support 10,000 plus desktops. We have the processing power available to us, but the latency of storage is no longer the roadblock it always was.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
samicksha
50%
50%
samicksha,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/31/2013 | 11:25:23 AM
re: Quick Guide To Flash Storage Latency Wars
Any review on Tape storage,as i don't think it going away any time soon, as it is still the most cost-effective and simplest way to archive huge amounts of data.
D. Henschen
50%
50%
D. Henschen,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/31/2013 | 10:49:46 AM
re: Quick Guide To Flash Storage Latency Wars
I heard an enlightening cost comparison the other day by Ari Zilka, CTO at Hortonworks. 1Terabyte of RAM = $70,000; 1TB of Flash = $8,000 to $20,000, depending on quality/discounts; 1 TB of hard drive = $60 to $100 depending on quality/performance. Maybe somebody would quibble with the exact figures, but it's clear there is a cost to real-time performance.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
10/31/2013 | 3:58:11 AM
re: Quick Guide To Flash Storage Latency Wars
Of course, this all stands to change over the next several years as SSDs gradually become obsolete (except, possibly, in hybrid setups) under Moore's Law. http://www.enterpriseefficienc...
beachscape
50%
50%
beachscape,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/31/2013 | 2:25:02 AM
re: Quick Guide To Flash Storage Latency Wars
Great summary describing latency in storage. It would be good to have a table comparing latencies of HDDs, SSDs, PCIe and flash memory DIMMs.
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-2011-4403
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Zen Cart 1.3.9h allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) delete a product via a delete_product_confirm action to product.php or (2) disable a product via a setflag action to categories.ph...

CVE-2012-2930
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add a user via an adduser action to admin/index.php or (2) conduct static PHP code injection attacks in .htusers...

CVE-2012-2932
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in TinyWebGallery (TWG) before 1.8.8 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) selitems[] parameter in a copy, (2) chmod, or (3) arch action to admin/index.php or (4) searchitem parameter in a search action to admin/...

CVE-2012-5451
Published: 2015-04-24
Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in HttpUtils.dll in TVMOBiLi before 2.1.0.3974 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (tvMobiliService service crash) via a long string in a (1) GET or (2) HEAD request to TCP port 30888.

CVE-2015-0297
Published: 2015-04-24
Red Hat JBoss Operations Network 3.3.1 does not properly restrict access to certain APIs, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary Java methos via the (1) ServerInvokerServlet or (2) SchedulerService or (3) cause a denial of service (disk consumption) via the ContentManager.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.