back to article TMS wins flash bragging crown with 100TB monster

The biggest, baddest flash clustered drive on the market has been launched by Texas Memory Systems, the 100TB RamSan-6200. This monster offers more than 5 million sustained I/Os per second and 60GB/sec of sustained bandwith. Individual read and write I/O performance isn't revealed. These are huge numbers, achieved by a scale- …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge

Comparison with IBM's TPC setup

It would be interesting to compare this with the set-up that IBM put together for their class-leading TPC'C' benchmark at 6,085,166 transactions per minute or about 100K per second. Most of the cost of that benchmark was in the storage listing at about $20m. It had no less than 68 disk controllers with 11,000 disk drive (8 x 146GB and the rest all 73.4GB 15K). You might, in theory, get something over 2 million random IOPs out of that many disks (before RAID overheads), but I suspect that will be at the expense of about a quarter of a megawatt of power and maybe 20 racks or more of space. Of course you would get nowhere near that 2 million random IOPs when measured at the front end due to the need to keep I/O queues down to a tolerable level and the write overhead.

Note that TPC rules allow for the vendors to discount the prices provided they would be available at that price at those volumes to real customers.

With the SSD it looks like you could hit 2m IOPs (at a much lower latency than the physical disks) with a list price of about something less than $9m in a couple of racks and what I assume is a fraction of the power requirement.

The one real downside is the amount of storage. Most of the IBM TPC'C setup was configured as RAID0 (log files, which are written serially, were RAID5). Configured as RAID0, the 11,000 mostly 73.4GB 15K drives would have offered about 400TB of storage space, so in terms of IOPs, cost per TB, power usage and (I assume) latency the SSD configuration would already be ahead. Of course those of us in "real" data centres aren't generally allowed the luxury of populating arrays with 73GB drives just to get the IOPs up - 300GB 15Ks (or worse) are the order of the day, so SSD falls way behind on a cost per GB basis. However, the fact that RAID-protected SSD can be a comparable in cost per GB to RAID0 protected 73GB 15K drives is very interesting.

It must be about time that a vendor does a TPC'C' run using SSDs. It's interesting that nobody seems to have yet done this, but if these numbers are correct, the nail must firmly be in the coffin of 73GB 15K enterprise drives. Cost these configurations over 5 years, including environmentals, and it is no contest. Enterprise 15K drives of about 300GB will be around for a while, but there days are surely numbered.

0
0

TMS?

Bugger - I thought for a minute there that the entire Test Match Special broadcast archive was going online...

0
0

Oddly enough:

It might seem odd, but it not that expensive. Provided you really need -or could use- the performance given. Actually...

I think I have a phone call to make.

0
0
Coat

TMS? Ashes? Lily Allen?

I'm with Blitheringeejit there... I also thought that there was some new angle on Test Match Special... possibly with a Lily Allen angle. Although calling her a 100TB monster would probably be a bit random... and the bit about flashing piqued my interest.

Oh well - another few weeks and my life can return to a kind of post-Ashes normality.

0
0
Joke

Microsoft office

Sign me up, I am thinking of upgrading to the next version of Office...

0
0

apples and oranges

While this is obviously a read only measurement, remember that Quicksilver press for 1M was a *sustained for hours* 70/30 mixed workload. Pure reads were doing over 4M iops, so its not that much of a leap.

Granted, Quicksilver was a technology demo - but thats where products start...

0
0

@ Columbus

Come now Columbus, I feel you are being overtly harsh toward the Redmond Beast. Had you said "upgrading to next version of Windows WITH Office" I think your comment would be more justified.

But you'll find disk space lacking as soon as you go to Windows Update.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums