Slashdot Mirror
Sun Unveils Thumper Data Storage
zdzichu writes "At today's press conference, Sun Microsystems is showing off a few new systems. One of them is the Sun Fire x4500, known previously under the 'Thumper' codename. It's a compact dual Opteron rack server, 4U high, packed with 48 SATA-II drives. Yes, when standard for 4U server is four to eight hard disks, Thumper delivers forty-eight HDDs with 24 TB of raw storage. And it will double within the year, when 1TB drives will be sold. More information is also available at Jonathan Schwartz's blog."
24TB... thats almost enough to hold all my pr0n!
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
and they are especially showing off the low power usage in that kind of space..
48 Hds, 2CPUs, and still less than 1200 Watts.
Oh many. Datafarm in a single rack.
...but how good is it at repelling the antlions?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Thumper? I hope the sand worms stay away...
Heat output from all those drives is a concern, but if you look at the photo on the ponytailed hippie's blog, you can see that the box has 20 fans in the front and probably more in the back. Makes you wonder what the thrust-to-weight ratio is. This box is going to make a screaming database server. 2GB/sec throughput to the internal disk beats anything out there, -and- the customer doesn't need to invest in SAN hardware to do it.
Orly Owl: Why, don't you know? He's twitterpated.
Thumper: Twitterpated?
Orly Owl: Yes. Nearly everybody gets twitterpated in the Thumper room. For example: You're walking along, minding your own business. You're looking neither to the left, nor to the right, when all of a sudden you run smack into a pretty rack holding 24 TBs of pretty racks! Woo-woo!
It would be nice if the system had a setting where you could transparently specify a redundancy factor in sacrifice of capasity. For example, I could set a ratio of 1:3 where each bit is stored on three separate disks. This ratio could increase to the number of disks in the system. And of course, little red lights appear on failed disks, at which point you simply swap it out and everything operates as if nothing happened (duH). Sure, we have a degree of this already, but managing redundant arrays is still a very manual process and when we start talking about tens or soon hundreds of terabytes, increased automation becomes a necessity.
Join Tor today!
Why does everybody here get so up with "The HEAT!!111".
Its 48 hds in a 4U case. 48HDs is about 600W under full load.
If you compare this to the fact that there are dual-socket - dual core servers out there that push 300W through a 1U case, thats nothing.
Also, a 4U case allows the use of nice fat 12cm fans in the front, while the horizontal backplane allows for free airflow (in contrast to vertical ones like used before)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Actually, software RAID is an advantage, performance-wise.
The old-time "big-ticket" was checksum calculation, but that is now an "also-ran". Distributing the i/o? Software can do it as well as hardware.
Both hardware and software have to be familiar with the blocking factor.
Where software wins is that it can be aware of, and skip reading to fill blocks if the block has never been used (or is not PRESENTLY in use). Which hardware RAID controllers cannot avoid doing.
The idea is to tie the RAID more tightly into the filesystem.
As to lower speed drives -- did you count the heads? Each is active at the same time. Yes, an individual i/o would complete faster with 10k or 15k spin, but the total throughput is based on the number of heads. For RAID5, reading multiple blocks will give you pretty much all the read performance you can stomach.
Write performance for an individual write operation would be improved; but generally application buffering deals with it. The tradeoff is number of heads, spin rate, and heat. The right balance? For you, write performance up, and, keeping heat constant, number of heads down (I presume that you are dealing with transactional loads, with commits). For me? tends to go the other way (my workload is general storage, with a bit of database).
As always, YMMV
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
This box is 100% designed to be used in mutual full advantage with ZFS. Thumper is what you would call a modern RAID array, as ZFS in this case blurs the destinction between hardware and software RAID. The CPU and memory horsepower is there for RAID-Z.
From this box, one can serve out file systems with NFS and/or SMB/CIFS (aka a traditional NAS), and in future releases of Solaris 10, also serve out LUNs over iSCSI and FCP while having all that data backed by the performance, reliability, and features of ZFS. The only thing it's missing is a consolidated, centralized CLI for manipulating storage, a la NetApp and ONTAP... but all the requisite pieces are there to turn Solaris, and especially Solaris-on-Thumper, into a NetApp killer at less cost.
This fits nicely with Sun's new ZFS file system.
ZFS blurs the traditional boundaries between volume management, RAID and file systems. All disks are added into one big pool that can be carved out into either the native ZFS filesystem format or virtual volumes that can be formatted as other filesystem formats. It has many other interesting features like instantaneous snapshots and copy-on-write clones.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
If you liked the concept of the e450, you'll like this box.
If you are interested in storage consolidation and increasing utilization while reducing storage islands. This isn't for you.
With 48disks, you'll want protection... all implemented in software raid. So you do raid-5, probably create raid groups of 12 disks? 8 disks? as the number of disks in the raid group goes down, the amount of disk you waste on parity, and the amount of CPU cycles done on calculating parity goes up.
As the industry moves to FC boot and iSCSI boot to alleviate the need to stock disk drives from 15 different vendors, this is an interesting idea for those who don't want to have a raid array. But in most shops, huge internal storage is sooooo '90s.
How do you replicate this beast? VeritasVolume Replicator. Serverless backup? Nope.
I think you're missing one thing. Where would all the drives go? On the floor? Suspended in mid-air? I'd like to see you get a Chassis+PSU+rails for $1000 that holds not only your Opteron motherboard, but all 48 disks as well. Plus, with that many drives, cooling, a *real* power supply is required (at 15W per drive, that's 720W right there, plus the Opterons, memory, fans, etc. and you're talking about 1100W - not your average power supply).
Another problem is vibration. If you don't have a good mounting scheme for all these disks, cross-drive vibrational issues will adversly affect not only performance, but MTBF as well.
Lastly, what about performance? I've seen this machine sustain raw access to the disks at 3GB/s.
That's *bytes*. Through the filesystem (ZFS), you get close to 2GB/s if you're careful. The machine has 10 fully-independant PCI busses inside - not a bottleneck in sight. Let's see the PCI bridge of your $500 mobo take that.
Once you do all of this, you're not $1/GB anymore, you don't fit in 4RU anymore, and you certainly
won't get the same performance. So I think that to build a similar box, there's no way you can
significantly beat the price. Plus, you have to remember that almost nobody pays Sun's list price.
Most VARs that sell Sun gear will give you a good discount. Comparing Sun list price to We-won't-be-here-next-week computers is not a valid comparison, either.
As to backup and replication, think zfs: http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/ Lots of folks are seeing this as simply a 2 socket server with lots of disk. With zfs it's more like a huge disk farm with an open, hackable interface and nice manners at the back end.
Organization? You must be joking..
Instead, we've been using these. Very good cooling:
Unfortunately, with a generic motherboard and an off-the-shelf SATA RAID controller, good luck fixing the thing when a drive fails. What's that? The RAID controller is reporting a bad drive, but you have no idea which drive it is because there's no way to light it up without shutting down the server and going into the RAID controller BIOS and telling it to flash the drive light?
Tough luck. There is a reason why Sun is a little more expensive: RAS. RAS is Sun's main hardware principle. It stands for Reliability, Availability, and Serviceability. Sun hardware is truly built with these concepts in mind. Concepts like: A failed component should trigger a visible alert (warning light), as well as a human readable syslog message that calls out the exact part that failed. You will never see these things in a self-built beige box without some serious hardware hacking on your own, and at that point, you might as well hire a team of EEs to reinvent the wheel.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
I can give you a few reasons they might. Having been through some hardware RAID nightmares I have first hand experience with a few of them.
HW RAID makes you dependent upon the manufacturer of the card both for RAID implementation and for drivers. We once a a couple hardware RAID cards managing a large (at the time) RAID0+1 array that would occasionally glitch and fail a drive or two (or occasionally every drive on the controller). The driver and monitoring daemon wouldn't report anything until a second drive failed. Despite battery backup on the card cache, a single drive failure would often corrupt the data on the mirrored drive. The manufacturer was nowhere to be found when requesting updates or bug fixes.
We eventually switched to software RAID and found that in addition to making the array reliable it improved our performance. This was in part because the 6 CPUs on the machine were significantly faster than the 25MHz i960 managing the RAID cards. We could also mirror across controllers on the 4 separate PCI busses which gets rid of a major bottleneck (the I/O on a PCI bus can be easily saturated by a few drives)).
There are other benefits to being able to RAID across controllers. A RAID controller is a single point of failure. If a controller fails on a HW raid system, your array goes down. On SW RAID (done properly) a single controller can go away without a problem.
The most reliable storage system we have (a Network Appliance rack) is entirely software RAID. (RAID 4, a number you don't hear often).
Support SETI@home