Comments on: Fusion io does the hard part http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/ Data storage info & analysis Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:23:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dan http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-199477 Dan Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:00:50 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-199477 It's interesting to see where this bottleneck in most home systems is leading to years down the road. When they figure out the bootable drive (quite the hurdle) and deal with any data loss issues (data isnt on disks anymore), I could see using these in all sorts of home and business applications. The other little hidden gem here is that with normal disk drives, the increase in capacity is linear. So you go from a 80-100-120-150 etc gig HDD. With these things tend to just double in size with each itteration. The capacity limitation is already equal to normal HDD. It’s interesting to see where this bottleneck in most home systems is leading to years down the road. When they figure out the bootable drive (quite the hurdle) and deal with any data loss issues (data isnt on disks anymore), I could see using these in all sorts of home and business applications.

The other little hidden gem here is that with normal disk drives, the increase in capacity is linear. So you go from a 80-100-120-150 etc gig HDD. With these things tend to just double in size with each itteration. The capacity limitation is already equal to normal HDD.

]]> By: Dan http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-198496 Dan Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:34:31 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-198496 Regardless of the current limitations and 'buts' I am really excited that SS has made such a dramatic leap forwards in the last year. Of course they need to be bigger to compare with their spindly brethren but everyone has to admit its going in the right direction. After what, 25 years of no real advancements in the underlying disk technology theres a new era coming!! Bring it on I say.. :D Regardless of the current limitations and ‘buts’ I am really excited that SS has made such a dramatic leap forwards in the last year. Of course they need to be bigger to compare with their spindly brethren but everyone has to admit its going in the right direction. After what, 25 years of no real advancements in the underlying disk technology theres a new era coming!! Bring it on I say.. :D

]]> By: Hpub http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-198474 Hpub Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:48:22 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-198474 They recently increased their prices too. $7200 for 160Gb version. I would definitely not use this product to replace any of my 4TB+ file servers. Who is able to re-outfit their datacenter with a PCIE card? It's not like it plugs directly into an SAS/SATA/SCSI hard drive slot. Servers are not designed to have many PCIe slots, particularly in a space restrained rack environment. Besides the 1Gbs LAN network bottleneck might defeat its purpose on a file server. They recently increased their prices too. $7200 for 160Gb version.

I would definitely not use this product to replace any of my 4TB+ file servers.
Who is able to re-outfit their datacenter with a PCIE card? It’s not like it plugs directly into an SAS/SATA/SCSI hard drive slot. Servers are not designed to have many PCIe slots, particularly in a space restrained rack environment.
Besides the 1Gbs LAN network bottleneck might defeat its purpose on a file server.

]]> By: SSD MAN http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-197951 SSD MAN Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:56:45 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-197951 According to the techs at Fusion IO, the advanced wear leveling algorithms allow the drive to be pounded on 24x7x365 for 7 years without loss of data. According to the techs at Fusion IO, the advanced wear leveling algorithms allow the drive to be pounded on 24×7x365 for 7 years without loss of data.

]]> By: atlr http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-197936 atlr Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:04:00 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-197936 ecards, Hopefully someone will publish a first-hand account of four Intel X-25e SSDs striped together. Although the SATA signaling is 300MB/sec per channel, I wonder which SATA controllers can support the potential throughput of such a configuration. ecards,
Hopefully someone will publish a first-hand account of four Intel X-25e SSDs striped together. Although the SATA signaling is 300MB/sec per channel, I wonder which SATA controllers can support the potential throughput of such a configuration.

]]> By: ecards http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-197645 ecards Fri, 19 Sep 2008 01:32:29 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-197645 There may be many cases where the new Intel drives are cheaper and faster. For example if you are doing video editing, the IOPS of the X-25e in a 4xRAID configuration is plenty fast, and the transfer rate would actually be higher than the Fusion-IO. There may be many cases where the new Intel drives are cheaper and faster.

For example if you are doing video editing, the IOPS of the X-25e in a 4xRAID configuration is plenty fast, and the transfer rate would actually be higher than the Fusion-IO.

]]> By: Jesse http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-197050 Jesse Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:55:50 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-197050 Here is the catch. Standard NAND flash has a maximum write-erase cycle life of about 100,000. In normal circumstances, IE your pocket thumbdrive, you'll almost never come up against this limitation. However when running an OS from this disk, or using it in an IO intensive application, my guess would be that you'll hit that ceiling quickly. During a conversation with the boys at Fusion IO they assured me that data was secure, because when the system becomes unable to erase a block it partitions it off. This may be the case - (Easy enough to, on a write-fail, to issue the write-erase to a different location, and re-store the data there.) I don't know - my other question is that PCIe is limited to PC Servers. I don't know to many non-X86 architecture systems that have PCIe. Seems like a pretty limited chunk of the market. (And that being said, the chunk of the market too cheap to buy a real server isn't going to plop down $19K for 640G of super-fast disk - with the sole exception being VMWare applications.) Here is the catch. Standard NAND flash has a maximum write-erase cycle life of about 100,000.

In normal circumstances, IE your pocket thumbdrive, you’ll almost never come up against this limitation. However when running an OS from this disk, or using it in an IO intensive application, my guess would be that you’ll hit that ceiling quickly.

During a conversation with the boys at Fusion IO they assured me that data was secure, because when the system becomes unable to erase a block it partitions it off. This may be the case – (Easy enough to, on a write-fail, to issue the write-erase to a different location, and re-store the data there.)

I don’t know – my other question is that PCIe is limited to PC Servers. I don’t know to many non-X86 architecture systems that have PCIe. Seems like a pretty limited chunk of the market. (And that being said, the chunk of the market too cheap to buy a real server isn’t going to plop down $19K for 640G of super-fast disk – with the sole exception being VMWare applications.)

]]> By: Kevin Burton http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-160624 Kevin Burton Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:22:51 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160624 I went benchmarks! We're thinking of using these mtron drives: http://feedblog.org/2007/12/13/ssd-vs-memory-the-end-is-nigh/ in Spinn3r (http://spinn3r.com) which have 80MBps write throughput. is the 87k here write IOPS or just read? Their numbers would yield > 700MB/s. Does anyone have any standardizes IO benchmarks on these drives? I went benchmarks!

We’re thinking of using these mtron drives:

http://feedblog.org/2007/12/13/ssd-vs-memory-the-end-is-nigh/

in Spinn3r (http://spinn3r.com)

which have 80MBps write throughput.

is the 87k here write IOPS or just read?

Their numbers would yield > 700MB/s.

Does anyone have any standardizes IO benchmarks on these drives?

]]> By: xfer_rdy http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-160605 xfer_rdy Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:46:17 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160605 Depending on "request to data" latency.... useful for database indexes, near ram caches (not as fast as ram), good for high performance OS implementations i.e. read only memory mapped files like dlls and .so (first shut off auto-updates), web server - less in ram file caching. DNS, LDAP, Active directory databases. It could work well. Depending on “request to data” latency…. useful for database indexes, near ram caches (not as fast as ram), good for high performance OS implementations i.e. read only memory mapped files like dlls and .so (first shut off auto-updates), web server – less in ram file caching. DNS, LDAP, Active directory databases. It could work well.

]]> By: David Magda http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/comment-page-1/#comment-160285 David Magda Wed, 02 Jan 2008 23:08:54 +0000 http://storagemojo.com/2008/01/02/fusion-io-does-the-hard-part/#comment-160285 This could be useful for transaction logs for databases or file systems (e.g., you can specify which device(s) to put ZFS' intent log on). Things could then be shuffled off to spinning rust at a more "leisurely" manner. This could be useful for transaction logs for databases or file systems (e.g., you can specify which device(s) to put ZFS’ intent log on). Things could then be shuffled off to spinning rust at a more “leisurely” manner.

]]>