Solving the I/O bottleneck with Flash Ori Balaban Director of Sales for Global Accounts SanDisk Corporation August 2007 1
Agenda Performance bottlenecks in HDD Alternative solutions SSD value proposition Benchmark results The future of SSD in notebook PCs Summary August 2007 2
Hard Disk Drives (HDD) evolution New perpendicular technology Higher capacities: 40GB 1TB with multiple platters (mobile HDD 200GB) Faster RPM: 4200RPM 5400RPM 7200RPM ( 10k and 15k RPM for enterprise) Higher sequential transfers (MB/s) But more power consumption Lower cost per GB August 2007 3
Not all is Rosy for HDDs HDD s inherent mechanical design limits system performance improvements WHY? August 2007 4
Terminologies: Random vs. Sequential Random and sequential terms are used while discussing disk behavior Random activity means the disk accesses blocks from random locations on disk, usually incurring a time penalty while the disk heads seek and the disk itself rotates Sequential activity means the disk accesses blocks one after the other as they are located on the same sector August 2007 5
Windows Vista file transactions 50% 20% 20% 10% Sequential read Random read Random write Sequential write August 2007 6
Windows Vista file size 8000 7000 6000 5000 Microsft VISTA Read data % 4000 3000 4KB size 2000 1000 0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 Buffer size [Sectors] August 2007 7
When Random and Sequential are used? Random OS changes and updates Applications and documents changes and updates Access user data Sequential Boot Hibernate Application load (main file) For example: When opening an application, the data files will be read in a sequential manner; however, all the associated DLL s (~100 in average) will be read and loaded in random from 5-6 disk locations per DLL Overall system performance is mainly dependant on random read performance (IOPS) rather than sequential transfers August 2007 8
Hard Disk Drive: Seek & Latency Latency Seek When a request for data is issued, the drive head is most likely not in the right place to read the data. The first step in retrieving the data is for the armature to move the head over the track where the data resides. The second step is for the disk drive to wait for the desired sector to rotate under the head so that the data can be read/written. August 2007 9
Result: slow random read on HDD HDD transfer time = Interface transfer + media transfer + mechanical latency (in ms) Typical 4KB request: 5.4ms Total Low IOPS limits system performance August 2007 10
How to solve the low IOPS problem? System memory Caching SSD August 2007 11
Not all solutions are equally good System memory: Fast Expensive Limited capacity Volatile Caching: Limited capacity No proven value Inherent HDD limitations Not plug-n-play August 2007 12
Testimonials The hybrid hard drive concept works, and I believe that there is a lot of room for improvement, but I would not pay any premium today to get an H-HDD today. Performance-hungry enthusiasts should wait for decent Flash-only hard drives. Tom s hardware July 13 th, 2007 But, in contrast, HP claims that Turbo Memory represents poor value for money and that it limits flexibility. ZDNet June 4 th, 2007 "There is no customer benefit right now [so] we decided not to integrate Robson and H-DD in the summer lineup [of new notebooks] H-DDs are only available with 256MB integrated memory too little to make a real difference. Sony to ZDNet, June 2007 August 2007 13
SSD: No seek and latency August 2007 14
SSD offers high IOPS August 2007 15
IOPS SSD vs. HDD 8000 7000 7430.133983 6000 5000 5405.808215 IOPS Read 4000 3000 2000 x80 SSD 2.5" SATA SATA 7200 RPM 1000 1019.654617 0 67.566646 67.099586 53.913744 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 Based on IOMETER 2003.12.16 Transfer Size August 2007 16
PCMARK 2005 Score for XP Performance Microsoft WEI Score for Vista Score 10003 9003 8003 7003 6003 5003 4003 3003 2003 1003 3 9222 1225 3150 PC MARK HDD Score 3805 SSD 5000 1.8 /2.5 HDD 1.8 4200 RPM HDD 2.5 5400 RPM HDD 2.5 7200 RPM Score 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 5.8 3.7 4.2 Vista WEI score 4.8 SSD 5000 1.8 /2.5 HDD 1.8 4200 RPM HDD 2.5 5400 RPM HDD 2.5 7200 RPM August 2007 17
Vista User Scenario S4 - Resume SSD 19 HDD 25 31.5% faster Shut down SSD 17 HDD 27 58% faster 2MB PDF SSD HDD 3.2 5.1 59% faster 4MB PPT SSD HDD 4.3 8.2 92% faster * HDD - 4200RPM, 60GB, 1.8 ** SSD - SanDisk SSD UATA 1.8 10 sec 20 sec 30 sec Conducted on Dell Latitude D420 notebook (Intel Core Duo Processor ULV U2500, 1.20GHz, 533MHz, 1.0GB, DDR2-533 SDRAM) August 2007 18
User Scenario boot and application launch SSD ** HDD * XP Experience 10 Sec 12 Sec 9 Sec Total: 31 Sec 11 Sec 22 Sec 17 Sec Total: 50 Sec SSD ** Vista Experience 10 Sec 20 Sec 9 Sec Total: 39 Sec HDD * 11 Sec 37 Sec 17 Sec Total: 65 Sec 10 sec 20 sec 30 sec 40 sec 50 sec 60 sec 70 sec * HDD - SATA, 5400RPM, 80GB ** SSD - SanDisk SSD SATA 5000 2.5 BIOS OS boot Applications Conducted on Dell Latitude D620 notebook, (Intel Core 2 Processor T7200, 2.00GHz, 997MHz, 1.0GB RAM DDR2-533 SDRAM); August 2007 19
SSD offers more than performance Reliability No failures from mechanical moving parts Enhanced user experience over HDD Higher MTBF ** (6x) resulting in lower failure rates and much lower chances for data loss 2M hours vs. 300K hours Minimal support requests Highly durable: Operating shock 1500G vs. 300G Operating vibration 2.17G vs. 1.0G Up to 117% improved shock tolerance in operating mode * HDD - MHV2080BH, 5400RPM, 80GB, SATA ** MTBF is calculated based on Parts Stress Method of Telcordia SR-332 August 2007 20
SSD Lower Power Consumption Longer battery life Enhances user experience Power Spin up Power Read/Write Power Idle Power Sleep Power Consumption (Watt) 5.5 2.4 0.6 0.3 No spin up power Half the power consumption during active operation ~24 additional minutes on 4 hrs battery HDD * SSD ** 0 1.0 0.4 0.3 Vendor * HDD - ST10021AS, 7200RPM, 100GB, SATA ** SSD - SanDisk SSD SATA 5000 2.5 August 2007 21
The Future of SSD in PCs August 2007 22
100 Average Price per GB comparison, SSD, NAND and HDD by Form Factors, 2006-2011 10 ($/GB) 1 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 SSD NAND </= 1.0in HDD 1.8in HDD 2.5in HDD Source: IDC, Worldwide Solid State Drive 2007 2011 Forecast and Analysis: Finding Space in the Expanding Digital Universe, Doc #207739, Jul 2007 August 2007 23
Projected SSD Penetration in Notebooks by 2010 Units (Millions) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Megabytes (Billions) Units MB SSD penetration in ~20% of the notebook market = 32M units Penetration driven by elasticity and MLC adoption 1200 PB of NAND flash to be used in SSDs or about 11% of NAND output TAM >$3B in 2010 $100/system ASP Source: Gartner, May 2007 Notebook market in 2010 is estimated at 153M units August 2007 24
Summary Random drive transfer rates are key to improve PC system s performance IOPS and not sustained MB/s SSD design needs to focus on random read transfers to offer better system performance Caching or memory system solutions do not provide suitable solutions for I/O bottleneck and as long as HDD is used, overall system performance will be limited by its inherent mechanical delays Price elasticity will drive higher penetration to the PC market August 2007 25
Thank You August 2007 26