Slashdot Mirror
Israeli Startup Claims SSD Breakthrough
Lucas123 writes "Anobit Technologies announced it has come to market with its first solid state drive using a proprietary processor intended to boost reliability in a big way. In addition to the usual hardware-based ECC already present on most non-volatile memory products, the new drive's processor will add an additional layer of error correction, boosting the reliability of consumer-class (multi-level cell) NAND to that of expensive, data center-class (single-level cell) NAND. 'Anobit is the first company to commercialize its signal-processing technology, which uses software in the controller to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, making it possible to continue reading data even as electrical interference increases.' The company claims its processor, which is already being used by other SSD manufacturers, can sustain up to 4TB worth of writes per day for five years, or more than 50,000 program/erase cycles — as contrasted with the 3,000 cycles typically achieved by MLC drives. The company is not revealing pricing yet."
If we have to ask how much it costs, we definitely cannot afford it.
Never do what you can in hardware, in software. ...and we can't do this in hardware! :)
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
With Enterprise SSD's (SLC) still in the $100/GB range, we're far away from general acceptance in the datacenter. MLC also has the problem of being slow to write to vs. SLC which is one of the important metrics when considering SSD's to accelerate your classic spindles. SLC's are reliable enough to last for at least 3 years even fully loaded at 3 or 6 Gbps.
I used some Intel X-25-M and Intel X-25-E's in my environment as they are affordable and generally get the highest scores in IOPS and throughput respectively read and write caches and the performance is way under my expectations. The Intel X-25-E's don't work well under heavy loads on LSI controllers (throws errors and SCSI bus resets) while he Intel X-25-M's do work fine. Every other month there is fresh firmware to fix some or another problem and firmware updating is manual labor with a boot CD, not something you can simply schedule at night or do while the system is online so they are what I would call beta-quality. Especially once fully filled the IOPS performance drops from ~3000 IOPS like a brick to ~1000 IOPS which a small set of hard drives can fulfill so the only good thing it's left for is latency.
We'll see what the Vertex 2 EX brings (Sandforce 1500 controller) which has an advertised 50k IOPS although that might be more marketing than anything. I'm still waiting on a decent priced SAS SSD which can actually sustain 5-10000 IOPS by itself even when fully loaded.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
How is this different/better than the sandforce controllers we already have?
I suspect this will eventually bring down the manufacturing costs of Enterprise class drives, rather than making consumer drives "more reliable". I think reliability concerns with current consumer-oriented MLC designs to be overstated.
Anecdotally, my Intel 160GB G2 drive is going on 7 months of usage as a primary drive on a daily used Win7-64 box, and has averaged about 6GB per day of writes over that period (according to Intel's SSD toolbox utility). Given that rate of use over a sustained period (which theoretically means it could last decades, assuming that some as yet undiscovered manufacturing defect doesn't cut it short) combined with the fact that even when SSDs fail, they do so gracefully on the next write operation, I just don't see the need for consumer-oriented drives to sport such fancy reliability tricks.
The SSD will have a more powerful CPU than the computer.. All it will need is a graphics and audio chip, more RAM and.. oh... nevermind..
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Say you're talking about a 4-level MLC cell, and say it runs at 3.3V. If the voltage is on [0V, 0.825V), that's 00b; [0.825, 1.65V) is 01b; [1.65V, 2.475V) is 10b, and [2.475V, 3.3V) is 11b. But those are analog voltages - the controller has to read the voltage, do an analog-to-digital conversion, and figure out which level it corresponds to. The ranges listed above are for if you have perfect discrimination - in most cases, it's difficult to differentiate small differences, so they don't use the full range. With better A-to-D and signal processing, they can resolve the differences better, which in turn lets them get more write cycles.
Those numbers are pulled out of the air for illustrative purposes; I have no idea what the real values are.
It's all digital.
Actually, once you get far down enough, nothing is :)
This sounds absolutely no different to how all wear-leveled, error correcting flash controllers work. They all use multiple levels of ECC to decrease the error rate. The 'signal processing' they're doing doesn't sound like anything new.
If there is something new going on here, it's absolutely impossible to decode from the layman's language used in the article. All I hear is "Other vendors use X bits for ECC. We use Y bits and we do it in software instead of hardware.", which is basically just another way of saying "Other vendors have 4 blades, we have 5 blades."
Wear leveling was normal for NAND long before that.
What kind of n00b are you?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6850443
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95