Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Start-up Claims SSD Achieves 180,000 IOPS

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the chestnuts-roasting-over-an-open-cage dept.

Lucas123 writes "Three-year-old start-up Pliant Technology today announced the general availability of a new class of enterprise SAS solid state disk drives that it claims without using any cache can achieve up to 180,000 IOPS for sustained read/write rates of 500MB/sec and 320MB/sec, respectively. The company also claims an unlimited number of daily writes to its new flash drives, guaranteeing 5 years of service with no slowdown. 'Pliant's SSD controller architecture is not vastly different from those of other high-end SSD manufacturers. It has twelve independent I/O channels to interleaved single level cell (SLC) NAND flash chips from Samsung Corp. The drives are configured as RAID 0 for increased performance.'"

8 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Congrats by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Congrats! Oh wait...

    Start-up Claims SSD Achieves 180,000 IOPS

    Claims? As in no one else but the company has stated this "fact"? I wish this article waited for a review before being posted :S

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
  2. Re:Yay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What an elaborate comment.

  3. SAS not SATA by davidwr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TFA said serial-attached SCSI (SAS) was currently 6Gb/sec going on to 12 by 2012. SATA III is also 6Gbit/sec.

    0.5GB/sec is 4Gbit/sec, which is under the SAS limit.

    Even if it were SATA @ 3Gbit/sec that would still be quite fast.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  4. Re:/me gets out the tub o' salt by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That doesn't get around the bottleneck at all. You've got the same ratio of actual bandwidth used to theoretical bandwidth possible.

    A single drive with multiple SATA interfaces, acting like RAID 0, would alleviate the bottleneck.

  5. Re:/me gets out the tub o' salt by adisakp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That doesn't get around the bottleneck at all.

    I get nearly 2X the speed of a single drive that is limited by SATA. Theoretically, that might not be the same thing but for all *PRACTICAL* purposes, it gets around the bottleneck just fine for me :-)

  6. Re:Typo? 1Gb FC connection? by Mprx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's more the "with random writes" part that is impressive (but what size writes?).

  7. Re:And when they do fail, by molecular · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Emphasis on "in theroy" as I had an SSD go with absolutely no warning less than 48 hours after installation, but I'm filing that under bad luck.

    I'd call that good luck. Bad luck would be 48 days.

  8. Re:/me gets out the tub o' salt by Garganus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That doesn't get around the bottleneck at all.

    I get nearly 2X the speed of a single drive that is limited by SATA. Theoretically, that might not be the same thing but for all *PRACTICAL* purposes, it gets around the bottleneck just fine for me :-)

    Yep, doubling your bus count usually doubles your transfer speed. *rolling eyes*