Where did my email go?
This week I was dragged into to the virtualized cloud kicking and screaming … well, sort of. LSI has moved me, and all my co-workers, from my nice, safe local Exchange server to one in the amorphous, mysterious cloud. Scary. My IT department says the new cloud email is a great thing. They are now promising me unlimited email storage. Long gone will be the days of harrowing emails telling me I am approaching my storage limit and soon will be unable to send new email.
With cloud email, I can keep everything forever! I am not quite sure that saving mountains of email will be a good thing :-). Other than having to redirect my tablet and smartphone to this new service, update my webmail bookmark and empty my email inbox, there was not much I had to do. So far, so good. I have not experienced any challenges or performance issues. A key reason is flash storage.
To be sure, virtualization is a great tool for improving physical server utilization and flexibility as well as reducing power, cooling and datacenter footprint costs. That’s why the use of virtualization for email, databases and desktops is growing dramatically. But virtualized servers are only as effective as the storage performance that supports them. If, as a datacenter manager, your clients cannot access their application data quickly or boot their virtual desktop in a reasonable time, your company’s productivity and client satisfaction can drop dramatically.
Today, applications most likely run on virtualized servers. The upside of server virtualization is that a company can improve server utilization and run more applications on fewer physical servers. This can reduce power consumption, make more efficient use of datacenter floor space and make it easier to configure servers and deploy applications. The cloud also helps streamline application development, allowing companies to more efficiently and cost effectively test software applications across a broad set of configurations and operating systems.
A heated dispute – storage contention
Once application testing is complete, a virtual server’s configuration and image can be put on a virtual shelf until they are needed again, freeing up memory, processing, storage and other resources on the physical server for new virtual servers with just a few keystrokes. But with virtualization and the cloud there can be downsides, like slow performance – especially storage performance.
When a number of virtual servers are all using the same physical storage, there can be infighting for storage capacity, generally known as storage contention. These internecine battles can slow application response to a frustrating glacial pace and lead to issues like VDI Boot and Login Storm that can extend the time it takes for users to login to tens of minutes.
Flash helps alleviate slowdowns in storage performance
Here is where flash comes to the rescue. New flash storage solutions are being deployed to help improve virtualized storage performance and alleviate productivity-sapping slowdowns caused by VDI Boot and Login Storm — the crush of end users booting up or logging in within a small window that overwhelms the server with data requests and degrades response times. Flash can be used as primary storage inside servers running virtual machines to dramatically speed storage response time. Flash can also be deployed as an intelligent cache for DAS- or SAN-connected storage and even as an external shared storage pool.
It’s clear that virtualization will require higher storage performance and better, more cost-effective ways to deploy flash storage. But how much flash you need depends on your particular virtualization challenge, configuration and of course budget: while flash storage is extremely fast, it is costlier than disk-based storage. So choosing the right storage acceleration solution – one is LSI® Nytro™ Application Acceleration – can be as important as choosing the right cloud provider for your company’s email.
While my email is now stored in the cloud in Timbuktu, I know the flash storage solutions in that datacenter help keep my mail quickly accessible 24/7 whether I access it from my computer, tablet or smartphone, giving my productivity a boost. I can be assured that every action item I am sent will quickly make it to my inbox and be added to my ever-growing to-do list. Now my next big challenge is to improve my own response performance to those email requests!
Most consumers are skeptical when they see a manufacturer whipping out grandiose performance claims. And for good reason. The manufacturer could be stretching the truth, twisting the results, or just being downright misleading. From this distrust grew demand for 3rd-party writers to review products, test claims and provide an unbiased analysis of the device’s performance and other capabilities – as consumers would experience themselves.
Who can really claim to be an SSD benchmarking expert?
Solid state drive (SSD) technology is still relatively new in the computer industry, and in many ways SSDs are profoundly different from hard disk drives – perhaps most notably, in the way they record data, to a NAND cell rather than on spinning media. Because of differences in their operation, SSDs have to be tested in ways that are not necessarily obvious.
Can anyone who simply runs a benchmark application claim to be an expert? I would say not. Just as anyone sitting behind the wheel of a car is not necessarily an expert driver. The problem is that it is hard to determine the thoroughness and expertise of an SSD reviewer. Does the author really understand the details behind the technology to run adequate tests and analyze the results?
Can “experts” present bad data?
Maybe it is obvious, but of course experts can be wrong, especially when they are self-proclaimed mavens without deep experience in the technology they cover. At a minimum, you can generally count on them to act in good faith – that is, to not be intentionally misleading – but they can easily be misinformed (for instance, by manufacturers) and perpetuate the misinformation. What’s more, some reviewers are pressured to do a cursory analysis of an SSD as they crank through countless product evaluations under unremitting deadlines – a crush that can cause oversights in telling aspects of a drive’s performance. In any case, it is not good to rely on bad data no matter the intention.
What makes for a thorough SSD review?
Some reviewers have gone to great lengths to ensure their SSD analysis is extremely detailed and represents a real-world environment and performance. These reviewers will generally talk about how their analysis simulates a true user or server environment. The trouble can begin if a reviewer doesn’t recognize normal operation of an SSD in its own environment. With SSDs, “normal” is when garbage collection is operating, which greatly impacts overall performance. It’s important for reviewers to recognize that, with a new SSD, garbage collection is inactive until at least one full physical capacity of data has been sequentially written to the device. For example, with a 256GB SSD, 256GB of data must be written to trigger garbage collecting. At that point, garbage collection is ongoing, the drive has reached its steady-state performance, and the device is ready for evaluation. Random writes are another story, requiring up to three passes (full-capacity writes) randomly written to the SSD before the steady-state performance level shown below is reached.
You can see that running only a few minutes of random write tests on this SSD logs performance of over 275 MB/s. However, once garbage collection starts, performance plunges and then takes up to 3 hours before the true performance of 25 MB/s (a 90% drop) is finally evident – a phenomenon that often is not communicated clearly in reviews nor widely understood.
Good benchmarkers will discuss how their review factors in both garbage collection preparation and steady-state performance testing. Test results that purportedly achieve steady state in less time than in the example above are unlikely to reflect real-world performance. This is all part of what is called SSD preconditioning, but keep in mind that different tests require different steps for preconditioning.
For additional information on this topic, you can review my presentation from Flash Memory Summit 2013 on “Don’t let your favorite benchmarks lie to you.”
Optimizing the work per dollar spent is a high priority in datacenters around the world. But there aren’t many ways to accomplish that. I’d argue that integrating flash into the storage system drives the best – sometimes most profound – improvement in the cost of getting work done.
Yea, I know work/$ is a US-centric metric, but replace the $ with your favorite currency. The principle remains the same.
I had the chance to talk with one of the execs who’s responsible for Google’s infrastructure last week. He talked about how his fundamental job was improving performance/$. I asked about that, and he explained “performance” as how much work an application could get done. I asked if work/$ at the application was the same, and he agreed – yes – pretty much.
You remember as a kid that you brought along a big brother as authoritative backup? OK – so my big brother Google and I agree – you should be trying to optimize your work/$. Why? Well – it could be to spend less, or to do more with the same spend, or do things you could never do before, or simply to cope with the non-linear expansion in IT demands even as budgets are shrinking. Hey – that’s the definition of improving work/$… (And as a bonus, if you do it right, you’ll have a positive green impact that is bound to be worth brownie points.)
Here’s the point. Processors are no longer scaling the same – sure, there are more threads, but not all applications can use all those threads. Systems are becoming harder to balance for efficiency. And often storage is the bottleneck. Especially for any application built on a database. So sure – you can get 5% or 10% gain, or even in the extreme 100% gain in application work done by a server if you’re willing to pay enough and upgrade all aspects of the server: processors, memory, network… But it’s almost impossible to increase the work of a server or application by 200%, 300% or 400% – for any money.
I’m going to explain how and why you can do that, and what you get back in work/$. So much back that you’ll probably be spending less and getting more done. And I’m going to explain how even for the risk-averse, you can avoid risk and get the improvements.
More work/$ from general-purpose DAS servers and large databases
Let me start with a customer. It’s a bank, and it likes databases. A lot. And it likes large databases even more. So much so that it needs disks to hold the entire database. Using an early version of an LSI Nytro™ MegaRAID® card, it got 6x the work from the same individual node and database license. You can read that as 600% if you want. It’s big. To be fair – that early version had much more flash than our current products, and was much more expensive. Our current products give much closer to 3x-4x improvement. Again, you can think of that as 300%-400%. Again, slap a Nytro MegaRAID into your server and it’s going to do the work of 3 to 4 servers. I just did a web search and, depending on configuration, Nytro MegaRAIDs are $1,800 to $2,800 online. I don’t know about you, but I would have a hard time buying 2 to 3 configured servers + software licenses for that little, but that’s the net effect of this solution. It’s not about faster (although you get that). It’s about getting more work/$.
But you also want to feel safe – that you’re absolutely minimizing risk. OK. Nytro MegaRAID is a MegaRAID card. That’s overwhelmingly the most common RAID controller in the world, and it’s used by 9 of the top 10 OEMs, and protects 10’s to 100‘s of millions of disks every day. The Nytro version adds private flash caching in the card and stores hot reads and writes there. Writes to the cache use a RAID 1 pair. So if a flash module dies, you’re protected. If the flash blocks or chip die wear out, the bad blocks are removed from the cache pool, and the cache shrinks by that much, but everything keeps operating – it’s not like a normal LUN that can’t change size. What’s more, flash blocks usually finally wear out during the erase cycle – so no data is lost. And as a bonus, you can eliminate the traditional battery most RAID cards use – the embedded flash covers that – so no more annual battery service needed. This is a solution that will continue to improve work/$ for years and years, all the while getting 3x-4x the work from that server.
More work/$ from SAN-attached servers (without actually touching the SAN)
That example was great – but you don’t use DAS systems. Instead, you use a big iron SAN. (OK, not all SANs are big iron, but I like the sound of that expression.) There are a few ways to improve the work from servers attached to SANs. The easiest of course is to upgrade the SAN head, usually with a flash-based cache in the SAN controller. This works, and sometimes is “good enough” to cover needs for a year or two. However, the server still needs to reach across the SAN to access data, and it’s still forced to interact with other servers’ IO streams in deeper queues. That puts a hard limit on the possible gains.
Nytro XD caches hot data in the server. It works with virtual machines. It intercepts storage traffic at the block layer – the same place LSI’s drivers have always been. If the data isn’t hot, and isn’t cached, it simply passes the traffic through to the SAN. I say this so you understand – it doesn’t actually touch the SAN. No risk there. More importantly, the hot storage traffic never has to be squeezed through the SAN fabric, and it doesn’t get queued in the SAN head. In other words, it makes the storage really, really fast.
We’ve typically found work from a server can increase 5x to 10x, and that’s been verified by independent reviewers. What’s more, the Nytro XD solution only costs around 4x the price of a high-end SAN NIC. It’s not cheap, but it’s way cheaper than upgrading your SAN arrays, it’s way cheaper than buying more servers, and it’s proven to enable you to get far more work from your existing infrastructure. When you need to get more work – way more work – from your SAN, this is a really cost-effective approach. Seriously – how else would you get 5x-10x more work from your existing servers and software licenses?
More work/$ from databases
A lot of hyperscale datacenters are built around databases of a finite size. That may be 1, 2 or even 4 TBytes. If you use Apple’s online services for iTunes or iCloud, or if you use Facebook, you’re using this kind of infrastructure.
If your datacenter has a database that can fit within a few TBytes (or less), you can use the same approach. Move the entire LUN into a Nytro WarpDrive® card, and you will get 10x the work from your server and database software. It makes such a difference that some architects argue Facebook and Apple cloud services would never have been possible without this type of solution. I don’t know, but they’re probably right. You can buy a Nytro WarpDrive for as little as a low-end server. I mean low end. But it will give you the work of 10. If you have a fixed-size database, you owe it to yourself to look into this one.
More work/$ from virtualized and VDI (Virtual Desktop) systems
Virtual machines are installed on a lot of servers, for very good reason. They help improve the work/$ in the datacenter by reducing the number of servers needed and thereby reducing management, maintenance and power costs. But what if they could be made even more efficient?
Wall Street banks have benchmarked virtual desktops. They found that Nytro products drive these results: support of 2x the virtual desktops, 33% improvement in boot time during boot storms, and 33% lower cost per virtual desktop. In a more general application mix, Nytro increases work per server 2x-4x. And it also gives 2x performance for virtual storage appliances.
While that’s not as great as 10x the work, it’s still a real work/$ value that’s hard to ignore. And it’s the same reliable MegaRAID infrastructure that’s the backbone of enterprise DAS storage.
A real example from our own datacenter
Finally – a great example of getting far more work/$ was an experiment our CIO Bruce Decock did. We use a lot of servers to fuel our chip-design business. We tape out a lot of very big leading-edge process chips every year. Hundreds. And that takes an unbelievable amount of processing to get what we call “design closure” – that is, a workable chip that will meet performance requirements and yield. We use a tool called PrimeTime that figures out timing for every signal on the chip across different silicon process points and operating conditions. There are 10’s to 100’s of millions of signals. And we run every active design – 10’s to 100’s of chips – each night so we can see how close we’re getting, and we make multiple runs per chip. That’s a lot of computation… The thing is, electronic CAD has been designed to try not to use storage or it will never finish – just /tmp space, but CAD does use huge amounts of memory for the data structures, and that means swap space on the order of TBytes. These CAD tools usually don’t need to run faster. They run overnight and results are ready when the engineers come in the next day. These are impressive machines: 384G or 768G of DRAM and 32 threads. How do you improve work/$ in that situation? What did Bruce do?
He put LSI Nytro WarpDrives in the servers and pointed /tmp at the WarpDrives. Yep. Pretty complex. I don’t think he even had to install new drivers. The drivers are already in the latest OS distributions. Anyway – like I said – complex.
The result? WarpDrive allowed the machines to fully use the CPU and memory with no I/O contention. With WarpDrive, the PrimeTime jobs for static timing closure of a typical design could be done on 15 vs. 40 machines. That’s each Nytro node doing 260% of the work vs. a normal node and license. Remember – those are expensive machines (have you priced 768G of DRAM and do you know how much specialized electronic design CAD licenses are?) So the point wasn’t to execute faster. That’s not necessary. The point is to use fewer servers to do the work. In this case we could do 11 runs per server per night instead of just 4. A single chip design needs more than 150 runs in one night.
To be clear, the Nytro WarpDrives are a lot less expensive than the servers they displace. And the savings go beyond that – less power and cooling. Lower maintenance. Less admin time and overhead. Fewer Licenses. That’s definitely improved work/$ for years to come. Those Nytro cards are part of our standard flow, and they should probably be part of every chip company’s design flow.
So you can improve work/$ no matter the application, no matter your storage model, and no matter how risk-averse you are.
Optimizing the work per dollar spent is a high – maybe the highest – priority in datacenters around the world. And just to be clear – Google agrees with me. There aren’t many ways to accomplish that improvement, and almost no ways to dramatically improve it. I’d argue that integrating flash into the storage system is the best – sometimes most profound – improvement in the cost of getting work done. Not so much the performance, but the actual work done for the money spent. And it ripples through the datacenter, from original CapEx, to licenses, maintenance, admin overhead, power and cooling, and floor space for years. That’s a pretty good deal. You should look into it.
For those of you who are interested, I already wrote about flash in these posts:
What are the driving forces behind going diskless?
LSI is green – no foolin’
Tags: Bruce Decock, DAS, datacenter, direct attached storage, enterprise IT, flash, Google, hyperscale datacenter, Nytro MegaRAID, Nytro WarpDrive, Nytro XD, PrimeTime, RAID, SAN, server storage, storage area network, VDI, virtual desktop infrastructure, work per dollar
Part two of this Write Amplification (WA) series covered how WA works in solid-state drives (SSDs) that use data reduction technology. I mentioned that, with one of these SSDs, the WA can be less than one, which can greatly improve flash memory performance and endurance.
Why is it important to know your SSD write amplification?
Well, it’s not really necessary to know the write amplification of your SSD at any particular point in time, but you do want an SSD with the lowest WA available. The reason is that the limited number of program/erase cycles that NAND flash can support keeps dropping with each generation of flash developed. A low WA will ensure the flash memory lasts longer than flash on an SSD with a higher WA.
A direct benefit of a WA below one is that the amount of dynamic over provisioning is higher, which generally provides higher performance. In the case of over provisioning, more is better, since a key attribute of SSD is performance. Keep in mind that, beyond selecting the best controller, you cannot control the WA of an SSD.
Just how smart are the SSD SMART attributes?
The monitoring system SMART (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) tracks various indicators of hard disk solid state drive reliability – including the number of errors corrected, bytes written, and power-on hours – to help anticipate failures, enabling users to replace storage before a failure causes data loss or system outages.
Some of these indicators, or attributes, point to the status of the drive health and others provide statistical information. While all manufacturers use many of these attributes in the same or a similar way, there is no standard definition for each attribute, so the meaning of any attribute can vary from one manufacturer to another. What’s more, there’s no requirement for drive manufacturers to list their SMART attributes.
How to measure missing attributes by extrapolation
Most SSDs provide some list of SMART attributes, but WA typically is excluded. However, with the right tests, you can sometimes extrapolate, with some accuracy, the WA value. We know that under normal conditions, an SSD will have a WA very close to 1:1 when writing data sequentially.
For an SSD with data reduction technology, you must write data with 100% entropy to ensure you identify the correct attributes, then rerun the tests with an entropy that matches your typical data workload to get a true WA calculation. SSDs without data reduction technology do not benefit from entropy, so the level of entropy used on them does not matter.
To measure missing attributes by extrapolation, start by performing a secure erase of the SSD, and then use a program to read all the current SMART attribute values. Some programs do not accurately display the true meaning of an attribute simply because the attribute itself contains no description. For you to know what each attribute represents, the program reading the attribute has to be pre-programmed by the manufacturer. The problem is that some programs mislabel some attributes. Therefore, you need to perform tests to confirm the attributes’ true meaning.
Start writing sequential data to the SSD, noting how much data is being written. Some programs will indicate exactly how much data the SSD has written, while others will reveal only the average data per second over a given period. Either way, the number of bytes written to the SSD will be clear. You want to write about 10 or more times the physical capacity of the SSD. This step is often completed with IOMeter, VDbench, or other programs that can send large measurable quantities of data.
At the end of the test period, print out the SMART attributes again and look for all attributes that have a different value than at the start of the test. Record the attribute number and the difference between the two test runs. You are trying to find one that represents a change of about 10, or the number of times you wrote to the entire capacity of the SSD. The attribute you are trying to find may represent the number of complete program/erase cycles, which would match your count almost exactly. You might also find an attribute that is counting the number of gigabytes (GBs) of data written from the host. To match that attribute, take the number of times you wrote to the entire SSD and multiply by the physical capacity of the flash. Technically, you already know how much you wrote from the host, but it is good to have the drive confirm that value.
Doing the math
When you find candidates that might be a match (you might have multiple attributes), secure erase the drive again, this time writing randomly with 4K transfers. Again, write about 10 times the physical capacity of the drive, then record the SMART attributes and calculate the difference from the last recording of the same attributes that changed between the first two recordings. This time, the change you see in the data written from the host should be nearly the same as with the sequential run. However, the attribute that represents the program/erase cycles (if present) will be many times higher than during the sequential run.
To calculate write amplification, use this equation:
( Number of erase cycles x Physical capacity in GB ) / Amount of data written from the host in GB
With sequential transfers, this number should be very close to 1. With random transfers, the number will be much higher depending on the SSD controller. Different SSDs will have different random WA values.
If you have an SSD with the type of data reduction technology used in the LSI® SandForce® controller, you will see lower and lower write amplification as you approach your lowest data entropy when you test with any entropy lower than 100%. With this method, you should be able to measure the write amplification of any SSD as long as it has erase cycles and host data-written attributes or something that closely represents them.
Protect your SSD against degraded performance
The key point to remember is that write amplification is the enemy of flash memory performance and endurance, and therefore the users of SSDs. This three-part series examined all the elements that affect WA, including the implications and advantages of a data reduction technology like the LSI SandForce DuraWrite™ technology. Once you understand how WA works and how to measure it, you will be better armed to defend yourself against this beastly cause of degraded SSD performance.
This three-part series examines some of the details behind write amplification, a key property of all NAND flash-based SSDs that is often misunderstood in the industry.
August was always an exciting time at my childhood home. We were excited that was school was starting in September and mom was relieved that summer was coming to an end. I remember the annual trips to the local department stores to buy school clothes every year. It was always exciting to pick out a new school clothing and a new winter coat. With only a few stores to choose from, many of us wore similar clothes and coats when classes started.
As consumers, we have far more fashion and store options today. There are specialty stores at the mall, big box outlets, membership stores and specialty online portals. With so many more clothing designers than in years past, retailers are also inundated with fashion choices. The question becomes, “how does the fashion chain – from textile suppliers and clothing manufacturers to the retailers themselves – choose what to carry?”
They all rely on big data to make critical decisions. Let’s go to the start of the chain: the textile manufacturer. It may analyze previous years’ orders, competitive intelligence, purchasing trend data, and raw material and manufacturing costs. While tracking analytics on one data source is relatively easy, capturing and analyzing multiple data sources can be a tremendous challenge – a point underscored in a 2012 research report from Gartner. In its analysis, Gartner found that big data processing challenges don’t come from analysis or a single data set or source but rather from the complexity of interaction between two or more data sets.
“When combining large assets and new asset types, how they relate to each other becomes more complex,” the Gartner report explains. “As more assets are combined, the tempo of record creation and the qualification of the data within use cases becomes more complex.”
The next link is the clothing companies that create the fashion. They have a much more complex job, using big data to analyze fashion trends and improve their decision-making. Information such as historical sales, weather predictions, demographic data and economic details help them chose the right colors, sizes and price points for the clothing they make.
Swim Suits and Snow Parkas
This is where we, as consumers, come into the picture. Just as I did many years ago, people still shop for school and winter clothing this time of year. The clothes on the racks at our favorite retailer or from an online catalogue were chosen and ordered 6-9 months ago. Take Kohl’s. The nationwide retailer uses a blend of geographic weather prediction data sources to know where to best sell those snow parkas versus swim suits, economic and competitive data to price it right, demographic data sources to better predict the required sizes and customer demand, and market trends data sources to better forecast the colors and styles that will sell best. The more accurately Kohl’s buyers can predict consumer behavior using big data, the less the retailer will need to discount overstock, and the higher its sales and profit.
As I stated in my previous blog posts, the Hadoop® architecture is a great tool for efficiently storing and processing the growing amount of data worldwide, but Hadoop is only as good as the processing and storage performance that supports it. As with flu strain and weather predictions, the more data you can quickly and efficiently analyze, the more accurate your prediction. When it comes to weather and flu vaccines, these predictions can help save lives, but in the fashion industry it is all about improving the bottom line.
Whether in fashion, medical, weather or other fields , the use of Hadoop for high levels of speed and accuracy in big data analysis requires computers with application acceleration. One such tool is LSI® Nytro™ Application Acceleration. You can go to TheSmarterWayToFaster™ for more information on the Nytro product family.
Part three of this three-part series continues to examine some of the diverse and potentially life-saving uses of big data in our everyday lives. It also explores how expanded data access and higher processing and storage speed can help optimize big data application performance.
In part one of this Write Amplification (WA) series, I examined how WA works in basic solid-state drives (SSDs). Part two now takes a deeper look at how SSDs that use some form of data reduction technology can see a very big and positive impact on WA.
Data reduction technology can master data entropy
The performance of all SSDs is influenced by the same factors – such as the amount of over provisioning and levels of random vs. sequential writing – with one major exception: entropy. Only SSDs with data reduction technology can take advantage of entropy – the degree of randomness of data – to provide significant performance, endurance and power-reduction advantages.
Data reduction technology parlays data entropy (not to be confused with how data is written to the storage device – sequential vs. random) into higher performance. How? When data reduction technology sends data to the flash memory, it uses some form of data de-duplication, compression, or data differencing to rearrange the information and use fewer bytes overall. After the data is read from flash memory, data reduction technology, by design, restores 100% of the original content to the host computer This is known as “loss-less” data reduction and can be contrasted with “lossy” techniques like MPEG, MP3, JPEG, and other common formats used for video, audio, and visual data files. These formats lose information that cannot be restored, though the resolution remains adequate for entertainment purposes.
The multi-faceted power of data reduction technology
My previous blog on data reduction discusses how data reduction technology relates to the SATA TRIM command and increases free space on the SSD, which in turn reduces WA and improves subsequent write performance. With a data-reduction SSD, the lower the entropy of the data coming from the host computer, the less the SSD has to write to the flash memory, leaving more space for over provisioning. This additional space enables write operations to complete faster, which translates not only into a higher write speed at the host computer but also into lower power use because flash memory draws power only while reading or writing. Higher write speeds also mean lower power draw for the flash memory.
Because data reduction technology can send less data to the flash than the host originally sent to the SSD, the typical write amplification factor falls below 1.0. It is not uncommon to see a WA of 0.5 on an SSD with this technology. Writing less data to the flash leads directly to:
Each of these in turn produces other benefits, some of which circle back upon themselves in a recursive manner. This logic diagram highlights those benefits.
So this is a rare instance when an amplifier – namely, Write Amplification – makes something smaller. At LSI, this unique amplifier comes in the form of the LSI® DuraWrite™ data reduction technology in all SandForce® Driven™ SSDs.
This three-part series examines some of the details behind write amplification, a key property of all NAND flash-based SSDs that is often misunderstood in the industry.
Every year I diligently get in line for my annual flu (or more technically accurate “seasonal influenza”) shot. I’m not particularly fond of needles, but I have seen what the flu can do and the how many die each year from this seasonal virus.
When you get the flu shot – or, now, the nasal mist – you and I are trusting a lot of people that what you are taking will actually help protect you. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), there are 3 three strains, (A, B &C Antigenic) of influenza virus and of those three types, two cause the seasonal epidemics we suffer through each year.
Not to get too technical, but I learned that the A strain is further segregated by 2 proteins and are given code names like H1N1, H3N2 and H5N1. They can even be updated by year if there is a change in them. An example of this was in 2009, when the H1N1 became the 2009 H1N1. So where we may just call it H1N1, the World Health Organization has a whole taxonomy to describe a seasonal influenza strain.
This taxonomy includes:
As you can see, it can really get complicated quickly. If you would like to go deeper, you can read more about this here. While much of this information seems pretty arcane to the lay reader, you quickly can see that the sheer volume of information collected, stored and analyzed to combat seasonal influenza is a great example of big data.
In the US, once the CDC sifts through this data – using big data analytics tools – it uses its findings to determine what strains might affect the US and build a flu shot to combat those strains. During the 2012/2013 season, the predominant virus was Influenza A (H3N2), though some influenza B viruses contained a dash of influenza A (H1N1) pdm09 (pH1N1). (See the full report here.)
In addition to identifying dominant viruses, the CDC also uses big data to track the spread and potential effect on the population. Reviewing information from prior outbreaks, population data, and even weather patterns, the CDC uses big data analytics to quickly estimate and attempt to determine where viruses might hit first, hardest and longest so that a targeted vaccine can be produced in sufficient quantities, in the required timeframe and even for the right geography. The faster and more accurately this can be done, the more people can get this potentially life saving vaccine before the virus travels to their area.
As I stated in my previous blog post, the Hadoop® architecture is a great tool for efficiently storing and processing the growing amount of data worldwide, but Hadoop is only as good as the processing and storage performance that supports it. As with weather predictions, the more data you can quickly and efficiently analyze, the greater the likelihood of an accurate prediction. When it comes to weather and flu vaccines, these predictions can help save lives. In my final blog post in this series, I will explore how big data helps the fashion industry.
Whether in medical, weather or other fields that leverage big data technologies, the use of Hadoop for high levels of speed and accuracy in big data analysis requires computers with application acceleration. One such tool is LSI® Nytro™ Application Acceleration. You can go to TheSmarterWayToFaster™ for more information on the Nytro product family.
Part two of this three-part series continues to examine some of the diverse and potentially life-saving uses of big data in our everyday lives. It also explores how expanded data access and higher processing and storage speed can help optimize big data application performance.
We all watch the local weather and wonder how forecasters predict (or in some cases mis-predict) the future of weather. While they may not all agree on the forecast, they do agree that the more current and historical data you have, the better your ability to predict what might happen over the next hours, days and weeks.
A term used to describe this growing amount of information is Big Data, and more and more of it leverages Hadoop, a flexible architecture that provides the analysis tools and scalability required to comb through and utilize all available data. When recently talking to a US-based meteorologist (the technical name for a degreed weather forecaster), I learned that meteorologists rely on many different weather models from various sources to help create their forecasts.
Weather spawns downpour of Big Data
These models collect massive amounts of weather information from around the world. Using this information, computers then run billions of calculations to mimic the motion of weather patterns in the Earth’s dynamic atmosphere and produce forecasts for any given location over time. It was interesting to learn that not all weather models are equal.
While weather modeling websites worldwide collect this atmospheric data and provide it to meteorologists, the European community is seen as having the most accurate information. When I asked why, I learned that European weather modeling sites have some of the fastest computer hardware and technology, enabling them to analyze more data faster, which produces better overall forecasts. The US weather professional I spoke with tends to use these European sites as part of his analysis, and when European models conflict with those from US sites, he often leans toward the European data.
His use of the European weather modeling sites points to the value of fast, accurate analysis of Big Data. It also underscores the implications of vast amounts of data overwhelming the ability of the compute and storage resources available to process it. An accurate and timely weather forecast is critical and a bad or missed forecast can have terrible and even deadly consequences.
A case in point: Hurricane Sandy
In this article on Hurricane Sandy forecast speed and accuracy, you can see how removing just one source of data can dramatically reduce the accuracy of predicting a critical event such as where a hurricane will make landfall. To be sure, the more data you can store and the faster you can process it for analysis, the greater your potential competitive advantage, even in the vaunted halls of meteorological analysis and prediction.
The Hadoop® architecture is a great tool for efficiently storing and processing the growing amount of data worldwide, but Hadoop is only as good as the processing and storage performance that supports it. This gets interesting as you think about and explore the ripple effect of accurate or inaccurate forecasting in many areas. In my next blog post I will explore one of those – flu vaccines.
Whether in meteorology or other fields that leverage Big Data technologies, the use of Hadoop for high levels of speed and accuracy in Big Data analysis requires computers with application acceleration. One such tool is LSI® Nytro™ Application Acceleration. You can go to TheSmarterWayToFaster™ for more information on the Nytro product family.
This three-part series examines some of the diverse uses of Big Data in our everyday lives. It also explores how expanded data access and higher processing and storage speed can help optimize Big Data application performance.
Tags: application accleration, big data, European weather modeling, flash, flash storage, Hadoop, Hurricane Sandy, meterology, Nytro, processing performance, storage performance, weather modeling
In today’s solid state drives (SSDs), the NAND flash memory must be erased before it can store new data. In other words, data cannot be overwritten directly as it is in a hard disk drive (HDD). Instead, SSDs use a process called garbage collection (GC) to reclaim the space taken by previously stored data. This means that write demands are heavier on SSDs than HDDs when storing the same information.
This is bad because the flash memory in the SSD supports only a limited number of writes before it can no longer be read. We call this undesirable effect write amplification (WA). In my blog, Gassing up your SSD, I describe why WA exists in a little more detail, but here I will explain what controls it.
It’s all about the free space
I often tell people that SSDs work better with more free space, so anything that increases free space will keep WA lower. The two key ways to expand free space (thereby decreasing WA) are to 1) increase over provisioning and 2) keep more storage space free (if you have TRIM support).
As I said earlier, there is no WA before GC is active. However, this pristine pre-GC condition has a tiny life span – just one full-capacity write cycle during a “fresh-out-of-box” (FOB) state, which accounts for less than 0.04% of the SSD’s life. Although you can manually recreate this condition with a secure erase, the cost is an additional write cycle, which defeats the purpose. Also keep in mind that the GC efficiency and associated wear leveling algorithms can affect WA (more efficient = lower WA).
The other major contributor to WA is the organization of the free space (how data is written to the flash). When data is written randomly, the eventual replacement data will also likely come in randomly, so some pages of a block will be replaced (made invalid) and others will still be good (valid). During GC, valid data in blocks like this needs to be rewritten to new blocks. This produces another write to the flash for each valid page, causing write amplification.
With sequential writes, generally all the data in the pages of the block becomes invalid at the same time. As a result, no data needs relocating during GC since there is no valid data remaining in the block before it is erased. In this case, there is no amplification, but other things like wear leveling on blocks that don’t change will still eventually produce some write amplification no matter how data is written.
Calculating write amplification
Write Amplification is fundamentally the result of data written to the flash memory divided by data written by the host. In 2008, both Intel and SiliconSystems (acquired by Western Digital) were the first to start talking publically about WA. At that time, the WA of all SSDs was something greater than 1.0. It was not until SandForce introduced the first SSD controller with DuraWrite™ technology in 2009 that WA could fall below 1.0. DuraWrite technology increases the free space mentioned above, but in a way that is unique from other SSD controllers. In part two of my write amplification series, I will explain how DuraWrite technology works.
This three-part series examines some of the details behind write amplification, a key property of all NAND flash-based SSDs that is often misunderstood in the industry.
It is always good to hear the opinions of your customers and end users, and in that respect June was a banner month for LSI® SandForce® flash controllers.
In a survey soliciting responses from more than 1 million members of on-line groups and other sources by IT Brand Pulse, an independent product testing and validation lab, LSI SandForce controllers ranked at the top of all six SSD controller chip sub-categories: market, price, performance, reliability, service and support, and innovation. Last August, the LSI SandForce controllers won in three of the six sub-categories, so we’re thrilled to see momentum building.
Winning all six awards is no easy task. Some of the sub-categories could be considered mutually exclusive, requiring customers to make trade-offs among product attributes. For example, often a product with the best price is considered to have skimped on quality compared to pricier solutions. A product with screaming performance, ironically, is seen as something of a market laggard because it usually does not carry the best price. So it is exciting to strike the right balance among all six measures and sweep the product category. You can find more details on the awards here: http://itbrandpulse.com/research/brand-leader-program/225-ssd-controller-chips-2013
For those of us in product marketing, winning product awards voted on by your peers can bring on a feeling similar to that warm afterglow parents bask in when they hear their child has made the honor roll or was named the valedictorian for his or her graduating class.
So please pardon us, for a moment, as we beam with pride.