News
11/7/2008
08:52 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

SSD's Latency Impact

In our last entry we talked about latency and what it was. We also discussed how storage system manufacturers are trying to overcome latency and performance issues of mechanical drives by using techniques like making the drives faster by using higher RPM drives, array groups with a high drive count, short-stroking those drives, wide striping those drives, and increasing the number of application servers

In our last entry we talked about latency and what it was. We also discussed how storage system manufacturers are trying to overcome latency and performance issues of mechanical drives by using techniques like making the drives faster by using higher RPM drives, array groups with a high drive count, short-stroking those drives, wide striping those drives, and increasing the number of application servers for improved parallelism.All of these techniques cost money, are not very green, and in many cases are more expensive than simply using SSD. Not to mention that they don't typically come close to SSD performance. The result has been the existence of standalone, purpose-built SSD solutions like those from Texas Memory Systems, Solid Data Systems, and Violin Memory, or the manufacturer adding SSD in a "drive-like" manner to its current storage systems.

The speed of SSD technology, especially DRAM, changes the latency focus away from the actual storage medium, as it has now been optimized, and onto the storage system's infrastructure, which is suddenly a lot slower than the storage media. For vendors that incorporate SSD into existing drive enclosures, the performance of the shelf itself becomes a problem, the performance of the processors in the controllers becomes a problem, and an incorrectly sized cache (too big or too small) becomes a problem.

Another factor is that the software load on the controller becomes an issue. For the past several years, storage manufacturers have been piling on features to the storage controller like snapshots, replication, data deduplication, and others. All of these features take computing resources away from responding to storage I/O requests, which worsens system latency.

The result is that while the SSD technology going into the solution may be fast, simply adding SSD to your storage system may not dramatically improve performance like it should. Standalone, purpose-built SSD systems offer lower latency because these vendors have built systems from the chip up that are designed to deliver on the low latency of SSD.

In our next entry, we will examine those differences and how storage manufacturers will need to alter their delivery of SSD technology. Then we will wrap up with capacity management on SSDs. At the cost of SSD technology, the only good SSD is a FULL SSD.

Join us for our upcoming Webcast SSD: Flash vs. DRAM...and the winner is?

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
Threat Intel Today
Threat Intel Today
The 397 respondents to our new survey buy into using intel to stay ahead of attackers: 85% say threat intelligence plays some role in their IT security strategies, and many of them subscribe to two or more third-party feeds; 10% leverage five or more.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-0640
Published: 2014-08-20
EMC RSA Archer GRC Platform 5.x before 5.5 SP1 allows remote authenticated users to bypass intended restrictions on resource access via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-0641
Published: 2014-08-20
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in EMC RSA Archer GRC Platform 5.x before 5.5 SP1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users.

CVE-2014-2505
Published: 2014-08-20
EMC RSA Archer GRC Platform 5.x before 5.5 SP1 allows remote attackers to trigger the download of arbitrary code, and consequently change the product's functionality, via unspecified vectors.

CVE-2014-2511
Published: 2014-08-20
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in EMC Documentum WebTop before 6.7 SP1 P28 and 6.7 SP2 before P14 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (1) startat or (2) entryId parameter.

CVE-2014-2515
Published: 2014-08-20
EMC Documentum D2 3.1 before P24, 3.1SP1 before P02, 4.0 before P11, 4.1 before P16, and 4.2 before P05 does not properly restrict tickets provided by D2GetAdminTicketMethod and D2RefreshCacheMethod, which allows remote authenticated users to gain privileges via a request for a superuser ticket.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Dark Reading continuing coverage of the Black Hat 2014 conference brings interviews and commentary to Dark Reading listeners.