Slashdot Mirror


Sun To Include SSDs On Server Motherboards

snydeq writes "Sun has announced plans to integrate solid-state drives onto server motherboards to provide faster data access for I/O intensive applications. For now, the company is offering SSDs that customers can slide into their storage bays, but long term, Sun will locate SSDs closer to the server CPUs to cut the bottleneck that occurs when powerful, multicore CPUs have to wait for data to be delivered from hard drives, according to the company. The move could mark a change in how Sun servers are designed going forward, including the possibility of servers that have no hard drive, relying entirely on SSDs."

25 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. But at what cost? by Lookin4Trouble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sun's hardware is already prohibitively expensive, how much will options like this add to the price of hardware? When I can order up a pair 4U boxen from any competitor that each have the same hardware specifications as a single box from Sun, what does this buy me besides simplified wiring/management, and the ability to run Solaris?

    1. Re:But at what cost? by josmar52789 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, I think we just read "what this buys you" Reduced bottlenecking, faster read/write... I'd like to see this on cheaper hardware...

    2. Re:But at what cost? by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're helping keep Sun from going bankrupt. Think of it as a charitable donation.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:But at what cost? by smallfries · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given that Sun design their boxes around their own custom hardware (Niagra, Sparc etc) who exactly are you buying the same specification from?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:But at what cost? by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that Sun design their boxes around their own custom hardware (Niagra, Sparc etc) who exactly are you buying the same specification from?

      You are correct, but incomplete. Sun also sells servers based on Intel and AMD as well as Intel based Workstations.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:But at what cost? by 0racle · · Score: 4, Informative

      We've only ever found Sun to be a few hundred more then IBM or HP when it was more expensive. The benefit being a Sun reseller actually returned our calls, HP didn't and IBM gave us a run around.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    6. Re:But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sun's hardware is already prohibitively expensive, how much will options like this add to the price of hardware? When I can order up a pair 4U boxen from any competitor that each have the same hardware specifications as a single box from Sun, what does this buy me besides simplified wiring/management, and the ability to run Solaris?

      Firstly, you employed the term "boxen" which pretty much denotes that you're a basement dwelling fanboy poseur.

      Secondly, prohibitively expensive? Sun support in my neck of the woods is first class... so much so that they're being encouraged to bid on support contracts supporting other vendors like HP, since HP support is utter shit.

    7. Re:But at what cost? by ishobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The last bidding process I was involved in (for x86 hwardware) 2.5 years ago, Sun came out less than Dell and HP, and significantly less than IBM. Options always add to the price of any vendor.

      --
      Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
    8. Re:But at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, there is a price tag. However, because Solaris and the SPARC hardware are both made by the same company, you can call and get 24/7/365 support and not get bounced between a software vendor and a hardware vendor endlessly. This matters greatly with server clusters that are supporting 99.99% or higher uptime, and one has to troubleshoot a kernel panic at 3am in the morning. Sometimes, a Sun tech may be sent out because the hardware notices a glitch that means hardware about to fail, but not yet.

      There is a diminishing returns curve where people pay exponentially more for hardware that supports more 9s, but there are a lot of industries that need this uptime. Banks come to mind, because the financial loss from down hardware after a period of minutes can easily pay for the equipment.

  2. But won't it wear out quickly? by Onaga · · Score: 5, Informative

    No.

    Before anyone complains about ssd wearing out quickly, please read here.

    1. Re:But won't it wear out quickly? by Jurily · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Before anyone complains about ssd wearing out quickly, please read here.

      That is the single most fucked up page layout I've ever seen. It managed trigger my ad-blindness for both columns. I gave up after three seconds trying to read it.

      Page loads: article nowhere. Just a bunch of incoherent links and some cute drawings. Ok, page down... a bunch of incoherent sentences? Where does the article start? What's the content? Why is the page divided into two columns which have no visible connection? Where the fuck am I supposed to start reading?!

      5 page downs later I realize the article is 500 pixels wide, while the annotations 700...

  3. Missing... The... Point! by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    long term, Sun will locate SSDs closer to the server CPUs to cut the bottleneck that occurs when powerful, multicore CPUs have to wait for data to be delivered from hard drives

    So close, and yet...

    SSDs allow us to stop thinking about attached "storage" devices, and instead think of them as their originally-intended purpose - Slow memory. For decades, they've run so much slower than the CPU that we can't treat them as a form of memory without paying a huge performance hit (try running XP with 64MB of RAM and a 2GB pagefile on the fastest HDD out there, and experience the suck); but finally, with SSDs, we may soon have the ability to treat them as a system's primary memory, with what we currently consider RAM acting as an L3/L4 cache. Not to say SSDs have come anywhere *near* DRAM for speed, but the no-seek-time-penalty starts putting them in the right ballpark.

    I also don't know that I'd consider building them right on the motherboard a good idea... Much like the same path DRAM took, in the end the limitations (no easy upgradeability) far outweighed the convenience ("just there" as a given).

    But one small step at a time, I guess, so kudos to Sun for taking even a baby-step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Missing... The... Point! by icebike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not so impressed.

      The reason they are on the motherboard is because they have exceeded peripheral bus speed. Of course, so have many hard drives.

      Keeping them as hard drive replacements will force new bus technology, which in the long run will be more useful than SSD on the mobo, which will be obsolete the moment it reaches the end of the assembly line.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:Missing... The... Point! by Cadallin · · Score: 2, Informative
      That's completely unworkable. For one, SSDs are at least an order of magnitude too slow, and two, while the number of read/write cycles for DRAM is effectively unlimited, the number of Read/Write cycles for even SLC flash is not.

      The ability of wear leveling currently to keep a Flash drive functional when used as Swap space is just barely there, use the flash as main memory and there is no hope. You'll constantly be killing cells.

    3. Re:Missing... The... Point! by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Informative
      I wasn't aware of _many_ hard drives that can saturate current bus standards.

      Today's mechanical hard disk drives transfer data at a maximum of about 118 MB/s,[5], within the capabilities of even the older PATA/133 specification. However, high-performance flash drives transfer data at 250 MB/s.

      For mechanical hard drives, SATA/300's transfer rate is expected to satisfy drive throughput requirements for some time, as the fastest mechanical drives barely saturate a SATA/150 link. A SATA data cable rated for 1.5 Gbit/s will handle current mechanical drives without any loss of sustained and burst data transfer performance. However, high-performance flash drives are approaching SATA/300's transfer rate.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SATA

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    4. Re:Missing... The... Point! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm waiting for FusionIO ioDrives to become affordable.

      They run through PCIe 4x slots directly to the CPU, so you can skip a limiting SATA controller. I've seen benchmarks approaching 2GB/sec by RAIDing multiple of them. That's almost 1/10th the speed of DDR3.

      All I have to say is... bring it! I want it!

    5. Re:Missing... The... Point! by Spit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the not too distant future, non-volatile will be as fast as RAM.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor

      --
      POKE 36879,8
  4. Re:Static Content by jschen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then why not just get a bit more RAM and load the whole site into RAM during boot-up? It's faster and more cost effective than getting a SSD hard drive if you're only going to use a few GB (if that) of the SSD drive.

  5. Re:Ram drives suddenly new again? by spacey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sun's using hardware that amounts to pluggable disks on a range of hardware. The same module they're putting into other devices will go into this motherboard, so it's sort of a commodity. A huge benefit of this tech is that if you can put your OS on it, you get faster swap, faster access to data on these devices, and much less electricity per rack. If they wanted to they could probably produce blades that were teeny tiny but still had on-board storage. RLX could have used this.

    -Peter

    --
    == Just my opinion(s)
  6. Re:Ram drives suddenly new again? by icebike · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With my slashdot ID half of yours I'd be careful about calling anyone "son".

    Being a server is even MORE reason this is an inappropriate use of SSDs.
    Servrs should be adequately sized and powered such that they can cache their
    workload and never have to reboot.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  7. Re:Integrated Components . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thanks sun but no thanks. We don't want to have to replace a $700+ motherboard every couple of years just to upgrade the SSD.

    Look at the picture below at:
    http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/technology/news/article.php/3809601

    Does this look like a integrated component?

    Looks like a Mini-DIMM to me.

  8. Re:Ram drives suddenly new again? by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given your attitude, I bet you are some sort of curmudgeon. I'm not, and my id is half again lower than yours. It's almost as if it is a meaningless number.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  9. Re:Ram drives suddenly new again? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Throw and equivalent amount of money at REAL RAM, such that your machine never swaps and everything will run much better.

    This approach works, but only up to a point.

    Sure, a system with a 64-bit address bus is theoretically capable of addressing 16 petabyes of RAM, but how many motherboards do you know of that have more than six or eight DIMM slots? I don't think they make 2-million-terabyte DDR3 sticks, yet...

  10. Re:Ram drives suddenly new again? by icebike · · Score: 3, Funny

    > I don't think they make 2-million-terabyte DDR3 sticks, yet...

    But you know of someone using that much swap?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  11. Why does nobody get this? ZFS L2ARC by eric2hill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone here seems to be missing the point.

    The integrated SSD probably has way more to do with being used as L2ARC cache in ZFS than as the primary storage for the box. ZFS is a bit sluggish without any cache (every sync burns a minimum of 5 writes to disk at different places), but the L2ARC feature introduced in the latest builds of Solaris (and much earlier in OpenSolaris) gives ZFS a healthy performance boost. Sun is already selling SSD drives in their 7000 series storage appliances as L2ARC cache. It's turned on by default.

    And for those of you who think they can buy white-box servers cheaper, you're right. Sun's hardware is more expensive. However Sun's servers come with integrated ILOM in all models, even the really cheap ones. ILOM in servers is an absolute MUST for any server not deployed within 1 or 2 floors of your desk, and adding an ILOM/DRAC/ILO/whatever card to a stock server jumps the price of the server at least $250-300, with some cards costing over $700. Having an in-the-box 100% supported ILOM is well worth the typical $200 price difference between Sun and other vendors.

    --
    LOAD "SIG",8,1
    LOADING...
    READY.
    RUN