Subject: Storage | November 14, 2014 - 02:00 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: btrfs, EXT4, XFS, F2FS, 530 series, Intel, raid, unix humour, linux
When you use Linux you have a choice as to which file system you wish to use, a choice that never occurs to most Windows users but can spark an argument every bit as vicious as the eternal debate over EMACS versus VIM versus whichever text editor you prefer. There has not been much SSD benchmarking done on alternate files systems until now, Phoronix has benchmarked the Intel 530 series SSD in numerous configurations on Btrfs, EXT4, XFS, and F2FS. With four of the 120GB model available they were able to test the speed of the drives in RAID 0, 1, 5, 6, and 1+0. There is obviously still some compatibility issues as some tests failed to run in certain configurations but overall these drives performed as expected. While the results did not vary widely it is worth reading through their article if you plan on building a high speed storage machine which will run Linux.
"Following the recent Btrfs RAID: Native vs. Mdadm comparison, the dual-HDD Btrfs RAID benchmarks, and four-SSD RAID 0/1/5/6/10 Btrfs benchmarks are RAID Linux benchmarks on these four Intel SATA 3.0 solid state drives using other file-systems -- including EXT4, XFS, and Btrfs with Linux 3.18."
Here are some more Storage reviews from around the web:
- Samsung XS1715 (1.6TB) @ The SSD Review
- Angelbird SSD2go Pocket USB 3.0 External Solid State Drive @ eTeknix
- Silicon Power Thunder T11 120 GB @ techPowerUp
- Silicon Power Armor A80 2TB USB 3.0 Portable Hard Drive Review @ NikKTech
- Patriot Memory Stellar Boost XT 64GB USB 3.0 OTG Drive Review @ Madshrimps
- Synology DiskStation DS1815+ @ Legion Hardware
- Western Digital Red Pro (WD4001FFSX) 4 TB @ Tech ARP
Subject: Storage | November 12, 2014 - 04:44 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: ssd, pcie, NVMe, Intel, DC P3500
Since we reviewed the Intel SSD DC P3700, many of you have been drooling over the idea of an 18-channel NVMe PCIe SSD, even more so given that the P3500 variant was to launch at a $1.50/GB target price. It appears we are getting closer to that release, as the P3500 has been appearing on some web sites in pre-order or out of stock status.
ShopBLT lists the 400GB part at $629 ($1.57/GB), while Antares Pro has an out of stock listing at $611 ($1.53/GB). The other two capacities are available at a similar cost/GB. We were hoping to see an 800GB variant, but it appears Intel has stuck to their initial plan. Here are the part numbers we’ve gathered, for your Googling pleasure:
- 400GB: SSDPEDMX400G401
- 1.2TB: SSDPEDMX012T401
- 2TB: SSDPEDMX020T401
2.5” SFF-8639 (*not SATA*):
- 400GB: SSDPE2MX400G401
- 1.2TB: SSDPE2MX012T401
- 2TB: SSDPE2MX020T401
We did spot a date of December 12th in an Amazon listing, but I wouldn't count that as a solid date, as many of the listings there had errors (like 10 packs for the price of one).
Subject: Storage | November 11, 2014 - 05:32 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: Intel, ssd, dc s3500, M.2
Today Intel refreshed their Datacenter Series of SSDs, specifically their DC S3500. We have reviewed this model in the past. It uses the same controller that is present in the S3700, as well as the SSD 730 Series (though it is overclocked in that series).
The full line of Intel Datacenter SSDs (minus the P3700). DC S3500 is just right of center.
Todays refresh includes higher capacities to the S3500, which now include 1.2TB and 1.6TB on the hign end of capacity. This suggests that Intel is stacking 20nm dies as many as 8 to a package. IOPS performance sees a slight penalty at these new higher capacities, while maximum sequentials are a bit higher due to the increased die count.
Also announced was an M.2 version of the S3500. This packaging is limited to only a few capacity points (80GB, 120GB, 340GB), and is p;rimarily meant for applications where data integrity is critical (i.e. ATM's, server boot partitions, etc).
A standard press blast was unavailable, but full specs are listed after the break.
Introduction, Specifications and Packaging
G.Skill is likely better known for their RAM offerings, but they have actually been in the SSD field since the early days. My first SSD RAID was on a pair of G.Skill Flash SSDs. While they were outmaneuvered by the X25-M, they were equipped with SLC flash, and G.Skill offered them at a significantly lower price than the Samsung OEM units they were based on.
Since those early days of flash, G.Skill has introduced a few additional models but has not been known as a major player in the SSD market. That is set to change today, with their introduction of the Phoenix Blade PCIe SSD:
If you're eager to know what is inside or how it works, I'll set your mind at ease with this brief summary. The Phoenix Blade is essentially an OCZ RevoDrive 350, but with beefier specs and improved performance. The same SandForce 2281 controllers and Toshiba flash are used. The difference comes in the form of a smaller form factor (half height vs. full height PCIe), and the type of PCIe to SATA bridge chip used. More on that on the disassembly page.
Given that we are anticipating a launch of the Samsung 850 EVO very shortly, it is a good time to back fill on the complete performance picture of the 850 Pro series. We have done several full capacity roundups of various SSD models over the past months, and the common theme with all of them is that as the die count is reduced in lower capacity models, so is the parallelism that can be achieved. This effect varies based on what type of flash memory die is used, but the end result is mostly an apparent reduction in write performance. Fueling this issue is the increase in flash memory die capacity over time.
There are two different ways to counteract the effects of write speed reductions caused by larger capacity / fewer dies:
- Reduce die capacity.
- Increase write performance per die.
Recently there has been a trend towards *lower* capacity dies. Micron makes their 16nm flash in both 128Gbit and 64Gbit. Shifting back towards the 64Gbit dies in lower capacity SSD models helps them keep the die count up, increasing overall parallelism, and therefore keeping write speeds and random IO performance relatively high.
Subject: Storage | November 1, 2014 - 08:10 PM | Tim Verry
Tagged: toshiba, sata 3, hdd, Hard Drive, 7200 rpm, 5TB, 4TB
This week, Toshiba introduced 4TB and 5TB hard drives to the consumer space. Coming from Toshiba's Digital Products Division, the new drives are part of the company's PH3*00U-1I72 series and are the first four and five Terabyte 3.5" consumer hard drives sporting 7200 RPM spindle speeds (though enterprise and NAS focused drives have been available prior to these new drives).
The new 4TB and 5TB HDDs are 3.5-inch desktop drives with four and five platters respectively. Toshiba is using Perpendicular Magnetic Recording (PMR) and Tunnel Magneto-Resistive (TMR) technologies to hit 1TB per platter. The 7,200 RPM spindle speed allows Toshiba to hit an average seek time of 10.5ms, and the 128MB of cache stores frequently accessed data. The new drives are paired with a SATA 3 6Gbps interface. Toshiba has included NCQ (Native Command Queuing) support along with shock sensors and ramp on/off loading safety features.
The 4TB drive has an MSRP of $299 while the 5TB model has an MSRP of $399. Fortunately for digital hoarders, the drives are currently selling at prices below the MSRP. The 5TB model is being priced around $320 while the 4TB model is priced between $220 and $240 at the time of writing depending on your retailer of choice.
Subject: Storage | October 29, 2014 - 03:10 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: tlc, Samsung, firmware, 840
If you own a Samsung 840 SSD, it appears that after much repeated and vocal pressure, Samsung has acknowledged the slow down also affects your drive. We're not talking about the EVO or the Pro, this is the original pure TLC model that launched (the EVO is a TLC+SLC cache hybrid while the Pro is all MLC). Here's the quote from Samsung, via Computer Base:
Uns ist durch das Feedback, das uns erreicht hat, bekannt, dass es auch beim Zugriff auf bestimmte Daten bei Modellen der SSD 840 zu niedrigeren Leseleistungen als angegeben kommen kann.
Im Moment untersuchen unsere Produktexperten systematisch die betreffenden SSD-Modelle innerhalb verschiedener Systemumgebungen und arbeiten an einer schnellstmöglichen Lösung.
Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Technologien sind die Modelle der PRO-Serie (840 PRO und 850 PRO) nicht betroffen.
What? You can't read German? Neither can we, but paraphrasing from the poor quality translation from several online tools, we deduce that Samsung has acknowledged the issue on the 840, and is working on a solution as quickly as possible. This is similar verbiage to the statement issued for the 840 EVO acknowledgement.
** Update **
Thanks to Zyhmet, who commented shortly after posting, here's a human translation:
Because of the feedback we got, we realized that, accessing specific data with units of SSD 840 could lead to lower reading performance.
For the moment our experts are systematically examining the SSD-units with different system environments and we are working on a solution as fast as possible.
Due to different technologies the PRO-series (840 PRO and 850 PRO) are not affected.
** End update **
Side note - of those who have used the 840 EVO Performance Restoration Tool, a few have reported an issue cropping up. The error manifests as a SMART data misreporting error:
What's odd about this error is that it was present on some of our pre-production test samples (firmware EXT0AB0Q), and was corrected once we updated those samples to the first retail build (EXT0BB0Q). The image above was an actual screen shot taken during our temperature-dependency testing of the slow down issue. While none of our samples had the issue return when updating all the way to the performance restored firmware, one of those updates did corrupt the Master File Table, rendering the majority of the SSD inaccessible. While we have seen no other reports of corrupted partitions, several users noticed the SMART reporting issue after updating. It's odd to see this sort of a regression with firmware updates, in that a bug fixed in the initial shipping firmware has returned (for some) in a subsequent update. If you've updated your 840 EVO with their Performance Restoration Tool, it may be a good time to check your SMART attributes. If you see the error above, please leave us a note in the comments.
Circling back to the slow down issue - given that it is present in two TLC-based SSDs from Samsung, one has to wonder if this issue exists in other Samsung TLC SSDs as well. Here's the list of potentials (thanks to an anonymous comment on a prior story):
- 840 EVO - 19nm TLC
- 840 - 21nm TLC
- PM841 - 21nm TLC
- PM851 - 21nm TLC (some SKUs)
- 845DC EVO - 19nm TLC
- PM843 - 21nm TLC
- PM853T - 21nm TLC
We have several questions out to Samsung on these issues, but to date they have not been answered. More to follow as we wait for an official (English) response.
In conjunction with Dell World, LiteOn has announced their new EP1 M.2 PCIe SSD:
Designed primarily for enterprise workloads and usage, the EP1 sports impressive specs for such a small device. Capacities are 480 and 960GB, random 4k IO is rated at 150k/44k (R/W), sequentials are as high as 1.5GB/sec, and max latencies are in the 30-40 us range (this spec is particularly important for enterprise OLTP / transactional database workloads). Given the enterprise specs, power loss protection is a given (and you can see the capacitors in the upper right of the above photo). Here are the full specs:
It should be noted that larger PCIe-based SSDs are rated for greater than the 1 drive write per day of the EP1, but they are also considerably larger (physically) when compared to the M.2 EP1. As an additional aside, the 960GB capacity is a bit longer than you might have seen so far in the M.2 form factor. While the 480GB model is a familiar 2280 (80mm long), the 960GB model follows the 22110 form factor (110mm long). The idle power consumption seems a bit high, but enterprise devices are typically tuned for instantaneous response over idle wattage.
Subject: Storage | October 28, 2014 - 01:30 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: ssd, sata, Samsung, 850 EVO
Thanks to an updated SKU list and some searching, we've come across some initial photos, specs, and pricing for the upcoming Samsung 850 EVO.
You may have heard of an 850 EVO 1TB listing over at Frys, but there's actually more information out there. Here's a quick digest:
- Memory: 3D VNAND
- Read: 550MB/sec
- Write: 520MB/sec
- Weight: 0.29 lbs
Pricing (via Antares Pro listings at time of writing):
- 120GB (MZ-75E120B/AM): $100 ($0.83 / GB)
- 250GB (MZ-75E250B/AM): $146 ($0.58 / GB)
- 500GB (MZ-75E500B/AM): $258 ($0.52 / GB)
- 1TB (MZ-75E1T0B/AM): $477 ($0.48 / GB)
In addition to the above, we saw the 1TB model listed for $500 at Frys, and also found the 500GB for $264 at ProVantage. The shipping date on the Frys listing was initially November 3rd, but that has since shifted to November 24th, presumably due to an influx of orders.
We'll be publishing a full capacity roundup on the 850 Pro in anticipation of the 850 EVO launch, which based on these leaks is imminent.
Subject: Storage | October 27, 2014 - 04:17 PM | Allyn Malventano
Tagged: Transporter Genesis, transporter, connected data
Connected Data (whose members are merged with Drobo), have really been pushing their new Transporter line. When we saw them this past CES, there was only a small desktop appliance meant to connect and sync files between homes or small offices. Now they are stepping up their Transporter game by scaling all the way up to 24TB rack mount devices!
For those unaware, Transporter is a personal cloud solution, but with software and mobile app support akin to that of Dropbox. Their desktop software tool has seen rapid addition of features, and the company has even rolled out version history support. Features are nice, but what will now set Transporter apart from competing options is scalability:
The base level Transporter (right) is a relatively simple device with a single 2.5" HDD installed. These devices scale through the '5' and '15' models, which appear to be built on Drobo hardware. The 'Genesis' models (left) are not simply Drobo 1200i's with blue stickers on them, they are full blown Xeon systems with redundant power supplies, an 80GB SSD, up to 32GB or RAM and 24TB of raw storage capacity. Here is what a typical business rollout of Transporter might look like with these new additions at play:
Features currently supported across the line:
- 256 Bit AES communication
- Transporter Desktop software solution (Windows and Mac)
- Transporter mobile app (iOS and Android)
- Redundancy within each node ('5' and above)
- Redundancy across nodes (via sync)
- Active Directory support
- No recurring fees
The 12TB Genesis 75 comes in at $9,999, but the '15' and '5' should prove to be lower cost options. The base model single bay Transporter can be found for just over $100 (BYOHDD). Full press blast after the break.