Slashdot Mirror


Is the Time Finally Right For Hybrid Hard Drives?

a_hanso writes "Hard drives that combine a traditional spinning platter for mass storage and solid state flash memory for frequently accessed data have always been an interesting concept. They may be slower than SSDs, but not by much, and they are a lot cheaper gigabyte-for-gigabyte. CNET's Harry McCracken speculates on how soon such drives may become mainstream: 'So why would the new Momentus be more of a mainstream hit than its predecessor? Seagate says that it's 70 percent faster than its earlier hybrid drive and three times quicker than a garden-variety, non-hybrid disk. Its benchmarks for cold boots and application launches show the new drive to be just a few seconds slower than a SSD. Or, in some cases, a few seconds faster. In the end, hybrid drives are compromises, neither as cheap as ordinary drives — you can get a conventional 750GB Momentus for about $150 — nor as fast and energy-efficient as SSDs.'"

27 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. It'd better happen quick then by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there is to be a time for hybrid drives, the window on it is fast closing. As SSDs get cheaper and cheaper more and more people will opt to just go that route. Most people don't really need massive HDDs and so if smaller SSDs get cheap enough that'll be the way they'll go. They don't have to be as cheap as HDDs, just cheap enough that for the size people need (probably 200-300GB for more people) they are affordable enough.

    For me personally, the time already came and went. I was very enthusiastic about the concept of hybrid drives, particularly since I have vast storage needs (I do audio production). However no hybrid drive for desktops was forthcoming. Then there was a sale on SSDs, 256GB drives for $200. I picked up two of them. $1/GB was my magic price when I'd be willing to get them. Now I have 512GB of SSD storage for OS, apps, and primary data. That is then backed by 3TB of HDD storage for media, samples, and so on.

    A hybrid drive has no place. I'd certainly not replace my SSDs, they are far faster than any hybrid drive (even being fairly slow on the SSD scale). Likewise I have no real reason to upgrade my HDDs, they serve the non-speed intensive stuff.

    While I'm willing to spend more than most, it is still a sign of things to come. As those prices drop more and more people will say "screw it" and go all SSD.

    1. Re:It'd better happen quick then by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right, but it didn't happen quickly. These is only one model of a hybrid hard disk available, which makes it unsuitable for any serious use in mass production. Also Seagate now tell us that their previous version was actually crap, and the new one is much much better. The price is lower but still high - about 100 dollars for 8 GB of flash. For that money you could get an SSD with 48 GB - and put all your system data on it.

      This is a niche product, designed for laptops with only one disk slot that require both fast access and high storage. It is heavily compromised in both aspects, and the price is outrageous.

    2. Re:It'd better happen quick then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Most people don't really need massive HDDs

      Are you kidding me.

      Record FRAPS of your gaming sessions, photography (or RAW), record and edit anything with any modicum of quality? Save said media and final encodings?

      Age of conan, 33 GB. LA Noire13 GB. Mortal Online, 30 GB.

      That is stuff ordinary people do, not audio producers.

    3. Re:It'd better happen quick then by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The rewrite figures are going to shit as they move to smaller processing tech, 25nm eMLC is already down to 3000 writes/cell, they say you won't get $1/GB at normal prices until we get 19nm which at least some say will be down to 1000 writes. That you're getting 500MB/s write speed is nice, but if you actually start using that regularly you'll burn through the disk in a matter of months. My first SSD - which I admit I abused thoroughly - died after 8-9000 writes average (was rated for 10k) after 1.5 years. My current setup is trying to minimize writes to C:, but I still don't expect it to last nearly as long as a HDD. Using it as a read-heavy cache of static files may be a better way to boost it for those that haven't got hundreds of dollars to spend every time it wears out.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:It'd better happen quick then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll lecture you about my practical usage versus your theoretical bullshit.

      I used a SSD for 3 years now and I have zero problems. It was cheap and it has literally transformed the way I use my computer. Its so fast I'd never go back to mechanicals.

      On the other hand, I had 3 mechanical drives failing on me, after an average use of 2-3 years.

      Until you actually try SSDs, don't lecture other people about them because you don't know what you're talking about.

    5. Re:It'd better happen quick then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SSDs typically have large memory caches, where as HDDs are still stuck around the 32MB mark. With RAM so cheap these days even the lowest end graphics cards are coming with 1GB, but not HDDs for some reason.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:It'd better happen quick then by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Informative

      While I love the speed the SSD (and the prices is hitting the "magic" $1/GB) you're forgetting the HUGE elephant in the room with SSD that almost no-one seems to notice ...

      SSDs have a TERRIBLE failure rate.

      http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html

      He purchased eight SSDs over the last two years ⦠and all of them failed. The tale of the tape is frankly a little terrifying:

              Super Talent 32 GB SSD, failed after 137 days
              OCZ Vertex 1 250 GB SSD, failed after 512 days
              G.Skill 64 GB SSD, failed after 251 days
              G.Skill 64 GB SSD, failed after 276 days
              Crucial 64 GB SSD, failed after 350 days
              OCZ Agility 60 GB SSD, failed after 72 days
              Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 15 days
              Intel X25-M 80 GB SSD, failed after 206 days

      and ...

      http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.hardware.fr/articles/843-7/ssd.html&usg=ALkJrhjecZZv1F6d_oT-dr41FPFYOIkVCw

      - Intel 0.1% (against 0.3%)
      - Crucial 0.8% (against 1.9%)
      - Corsair 2.9% (against 2.7%)
      - OCZ 4.2% (against 3.5%)

      Intel confirms its first place with a return rate of the most impressive. It is followed from Crucial, which significantly improves the rate but it must be said that the latter was heavily impacted by the M225 - the C300 is only reached 1%. The return rate for failure are up against Corsair and OCZ especially in the latter confirmed by far his last position. 8 SSDs are beyond the 5%:

      - 9.14% 2 240 GB OCZ Vertex
      - 8.61% 2 120 GB OCZ Agility
      - 7.27% 40GB OCZ Agility 2
      - 6.20% 60GB OCZ Agility 2
      - 5.83% 80 GB Corsair Force
      - 5.31% 90GB OCZ Agility 2
      - 5.31% 2 100 GB OCZ Vertex
      - 5.04% OCZ Agility 2 3.5 "120 GB

      At the _current_ price point & abysmal failure raite, SSD sadly has a ways to go before it catches on with the main stream.

    7. Re:It'd better happen quick then by jimicus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The cache on a hard disk is often used as write cache - store incoming data in cache, leave actually committing it to disk until a convenient opportunity arises.

      32MB of cache doesn't take that long to flush. 1GB, OTOH...

    8. Re:It'd better happen quick then by abigsmurf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep, had a OCZ drive fail after 3 months. First time I've had a drive that wasn't DOA fail before at least 2-3 years of usage

      It wasn't even one of those gradual fails you tend to get with HDDs where they tend to start getting faults for a while before failing, giving you a chance to get the data off of it and order a replacement. One day it was working normally, next day, wasn't even recognised by the bios.

      Just to add insult to injury, OCZ have an awful returns policy, had to pay to get it send recorded delivery to the Netherlands. Cost me £20. Going to be a few years before I take the plunge again and I won't be buying OCZ. Paying premium prices for something so unreliable, isn't on, especially given how much of an impact a sudden drive failure has on just about every type of user.

    9. Re:It'd better happen quick then by cgenman · · Score: 4, Informative

      MTBF is a complete BS statistic. Take the first week of a hard drive's life. Make a linear extrapolation to that over the next 1000 years. Post marketing statistic that is grossly divergent from reality. The Western Digital listed in the thread below has a MTBF of 171 years. Anyone working in a real environment will confirm that is just ludicrous. What you're measuring is that for the first week of a hard drive's life, it behaves like it would live for 171 years. After the first week, it's all downhill. Back in the real world I kill laptop drives at least every 2 years, and desktops every 5.

      This makes MTBF an OK but not great cross-device comparison statistic, with the assumption that all hard drives age in about the same way. SSD's really don't age like Hard Drives. They're less prone to total catastrophic failure. They lose a little capacity on a regular basis. They don't have axle bearings or dust to worry about. They will age and have electrical problems, but nowhere near the mechanical problems of hard drives. They will age in a more linear fashion. A 50 year MTBF of an SSD drive is actually a plausibly useful data point, whereas a 200 year MTBF of a hard disk is a BPOS.

    10. Re:It'd better happen quick then by jimicus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Would add far too much cost to the hard drive, but this is essentially what server-class hardware RAID controllers do. The battery doesn't power the hard disk, it just keeps the cache running.

    11. Re:It'd better happen quick then by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rewrite figures are going to shit as they move to smaller processing tech, 25nm eMLC is already down to 3000 writes/cell, they say you won't get $1/GB at normal prices until we get 19nm which at least some say will be down to 1000 writes.

      Based on 3000/25nm tech, the new erase cycle limits will be ~58% (1700/19nm) but the storage capacity per area will increase by ~70%.

      That you're getting 500MB/s write speed is nice, but if you actually start using that regularly you'll burn through the disk in a matter of months.

      The smaller tech has just as much "heavy use" as the larger tech when equal amounts of board area are dedicated to flash chips. A board with 1 TB of 1700-cycle flash can take a serious write pounding even with considerable write amplification. The same board on the 25nm tech would only have 588 GB of 3000-cycle flash/

      "Heavy use" doesnt mean "fastest possible erases." I don't know what you think heavy use means, but even extreme pounding scenarios (such as cycling the entire 1 TB once per day, something you might see in a non-incremental backup server) still gives these drives years of cycles to "blow" through. You could technically kill this theoretical drive in a little over a month but that says nothing about what a "heavy user" will actually witness.

      The people solving write needs extreme enough that they would burn through the cycles of this theoretical 1 TB drive in less than a year are dedicating a lot more than a single 1 TB drive to their data volume problem

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:It'd better happen quick then by olau · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because it doesn't do anything good for hard drives. There was a paper about it some years ago, I'm too lazy to google it up, but even 32 MB is too much (I think the sweet spot was around 2 MB).

      If you think about it, it's not surprising, what good would it do that the disk cache in main memory managed by the OS didn't already do?

      Large on-disk cache would only make sense if it was combined with a battery or something so you don't loose data on crashes.

    13. Re:It'd better happen quick then by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's because it doesn't do anything good for hard drives. There was a paper about it some years ago, I'm too lazy to google it up, but even 32 MB is too much (I think the sweet spot was around 2 MB).

      Having had the 2MB and 8MB versions of the same disk from Seagate that uses the same mechanism and having seen the 8MB disk be substantially faster, I'm pretty sure it's not 2MB.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:It'd better happen quick then by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      MTBF is not the failure rate of a single disk, it's the average failure rate of disks used in an array. If you have a type of disk with a 100,000 hour MTBF, and use 100 of them (whether in a raid array, a cluster, or 100 individual desktops in a company). Then you will (roughly) replace one disk due to failure for every 1000 hours (100,000 MTBF / 100 disks), or 40 days.

      It doesn't try to pretend that a single disk lasts 100,000 hours. That's stupid.

    15. Re:It'd better happen quick then by swalve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree. But the difference between 32 and 64 might not be so great. There is a limit to how much a HDD can predicatively read, and I have to think that the real world difference between caching writes isn't going to be all that much on a single user machine. What we will see, I believe, is drives that become smarter and have their own filesystem layer that obscures the LBA from the physical location on the disk. The machine says "write this data to block 43533224" and the HDD just starts writing to whatever free blocks are nearest to its r/w head, using the flash to store the map. It will then defrag itself during downtimes to optimize the locations. (Dear Seagate: if I really just invented this, please pay me.)

    16. Re:It'd better happen quick then by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you would care to read up what MTBF actually means and how it is used you would not say it is BS.

      If you have a drive with MTBF of 171years, how likely is it will fail during its expected usage period of 5 years? It is 2.88%

      What is the likelihood a drive with 230 years MTBF will fail during the next 2 years? It is 0.86%

      The formular is p(a) = 1-e ^ (- a/mtbf)

      If you can not work with that, don't balme the engineers that can.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Is this significantly different from SRT? by pathological+liar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't imagine it is. Anandtech found it wasn't that difficult to evict stuff from the cache you actually wanted. Not to mention that if you start copying anything especially large (your MP3 collection, or installing a couple games from a Steam sale, say) you nuke the cache and are back to mechanical HD performance.

    Personally, I prefer to do it manually. Stuff I want to load fast (Windows, applications, games, my profile folder) sit on an SSD. Bulk data sits on a mechanical drive.

  3. Prices! by Shifty0x88 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not only are SSD prices going down, but traditional hard drives are going UP! (At least for the short term)

    Prices taken from Newegg.com:

    Seagate Barracuda XT 3TB is $399.99 (used to be a lot cheaper)

    Seagate Barracuda 1TB SATA III:

    About a year ago: On sale for $60, regular $70

    Now: $149.99

    I think now is the time of the SSD and the hybrid drive is just not worth the price

    And considering this drive is retailed at $239.99 and a regular mechanical 750GB drive is between $69.99(Hitachi Deskstar) and $179.99(Western Digital Black) there is no reason to buy it.

    Just go buy a small SSD and a regular mechanical drive and do it manually

  4. First hand by jamesh · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have one. It works great, but "chirps" occasionally which I think is the sound of the motor spinning down. None of the firmware updates i've applied that claim to fix the chirp actually fix it.

    It runs much faster than my previous drive, but i'm also comparing a 7200RPM drive to a 5400RPM drive so the speed increase isn't just because it's a hybrid.

    I guess the advantage of the SSD cache is that if you use it in a circular fashion you can avoid a lot of the 'read-erase-rewrite' cycles... but I don't know how the cache is organised for sure.

  5. Re:Cache hasn't helped that much has it? by greg1104 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are only two things drive cache can help with significantly. When rebooting, where memory is empty, you can get memory primed with the most common parts of the OS faster if most of that data can be read from the SSD. Optimizers that reorder the boot files will get you much of the same benefit if they can be used.

    Disk cache used for writes is extremely helpful, because it allows write combining and elevator sorting to improve random write workloads, making them closer to sequential. However, you have to be careful, because things sitting in those caches can be lost if the power fails. That can be a corruption issue on things that expect writes to really be on disk, such as databases. Putting some flash to cache those writes, with a supercapacitor to ensure all pending writes complete on shutdown, is a reasonable replacement for the classic approach: using a larger battery-backed power source to retain the cache across power loss or similar temporary failures. The risk with the old way is that the server will be off-line long enough for the battery to discharge. Hybrid drives should be able to flush to SSD just with their capacitor buffer, so you're consistent with the filesystem state, only a moment after the server powers down.

    As for why read caching doesn't normally help, the operating system filesystem cache is giant compared to any size it might be. When OS memory is gigabytes and drive ones megabytes, you'll almost always be in a double-buffer situation: whatever is in the drive's cache will also still be in the OS's cache, and therefore never be requested. The only way you're likely to get any real benefit from the drive cache is if the drive does read-ahead. Then it might only return the blocks requested to the OS, while caching ones it happened to pass over anyway. If you then ask for those next, you get them at cache speeds. On Linux at least, this is also a futile effort; the OS read-ahead is also smarter than any of the drive logic, and it may very well ask for things in that order in the first place.

    One relevant number for improving read speeds is command queue depth. You can get better throughput by ordering reads better, so they seek around the mechanical drive less. There's a latency issue here though--requests at the opposite edge can starve if the queue gets too big--so excessive tuning in that direction isn't useful either.

  6. Realize the limitations... by jafo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hybrid drives, and even all of the hybrid RAID controllers I've looked at, only use the SSD for read acceleration. They aren't used for writes, from what I could tell from their specs. So you're almost certainly better off upgrading your system to the next larger amount of RAM rather than getting a hybrid drive.

    Personally, I looked at my storage usage and realized that if I didn't keep *EVERYTHING* on my laptop (every photo I'd taken for 10+ years, 4 or 5 Linux ISOs, etc) and instead put those on a server at home, I could go from a 500GB spinning disc to an 80GB SSD. So I did and there's been no looking back. The first gen Intel X-25M drives had some performance issues, but since then I've been happy with the performance of them.

  7. This Drive is CRAP by rdebath · · Score: 4, Informative

    This Drive is CRAP
    ASSUMING that it still only does read caching.

    I bought one of the Gen-1 drives and was very underwhelmed. I wanted write caching; 4GB of non-volatile memory with the performance of SLC flash could allow windows (or whatever) to write to the drive flat out for up many seconds without a single choke due to the drive.

    In addition 4G of write-back cache is enough to give a significant performance boost for continuous random writes across the drive and even more so across a small extent such as a database or a DotNET native image cache.

    But for reading it's insignificant compared to the 3-16Gbytes of (so much faster) main memory that most systems contain, except at boot time when, unlike RAM, it will already contain some data. The problem with this is that it will contain the most recently read data, whereas the boot files can quite reasonably be described as least recently read.

    So in the real world it's useless for anything except a machine that's rebooted every five minutes ...

  8. Seagate slashvertisement? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative

    They may be slower than SSDs, but not by much

    That's horribly incorrect. I liked the sound of hybrid drives as well when I saw the price... The 500GB laptop hard drives with 4GB Flash for $150, should be awesome... But I, not being an idiot, did some research, and sure enough, the reviews say it's not remotely comparable to a real SSD.

    eg. http://www.storagereview.com/seagate_momentus_xt_review

    It's faster than a drive without such a cache, and it might be a good option for a laptop, but even there I'd say a 32GB SD card would be cheaper, and will work wonders on FreeBSD with ZFS configured for L2ARC...

    I have no particular interest in what anyone buys, but the comparison to real SSDs is a massively dishonest.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Seagate slashvertisement? by a_hanso · · Score: 3, Informative

      OP here. To be honest, the original submission does not contain the "but not by much" and the sentences following the one about the CNET article.

  9. Intel's Z68 chipset negates the need for this driv by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Informative

    and their upcoming Ivy Bridge chipset will take it even further. Both allow for the use of a small SSD drive as a cache against a larger traditional hard drive.

    Per the wiki page on their chipsets, The Z68 also added support for transparently caching hard disk data onto solid-state drives (up to 64GB), a technology called Smart Response Technology

    SRT link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Response_Technology

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  10. Re:why do firmware updates format? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Informative

    It sucks but has an easy but time consuming fix that leaves you with the drive contents intact:
    Boot a live Linux distro. And hook a USB HDD to the system and mount it. The USB hdd can even be formatted NTFS if the live distro has FUSE installed along with the ntfs-3g driver, most live distros already have it or will allow you to install them. Assuming your SSD is the primary or only disk in your system then:

    (You need to be root or use sudo, on most live distros you simply type "su root" or "sudo -s")

    #dd if=/dev/sda of=/path/to/backup/disk/ssd_backup.img conv=sync,noerror bs=1024k

    /dev/sda is the first disk in the system. you may have to run ls /dev/sd* to get a list of disks and partitions. and note, sda is the entire disk block-for-block, sda1 is a partition just like sda2 , sda3 etc. If you have more than one disk and don't know which letter it is then simply type fdisk -lu /dev/sdX (X being the letter you want to check) and it will dump the drive info.

    It may take about 5+ hours assuming you have a 512GB SSD and an optimal USB transfer rate of 25MBps to the backup disk (in my experience the average for USB 2.0 write speeds). Faster backup disks and smaller capacity SSD's will backup much faster.

    Once complete, you now have a bit for bit block-level copy of the SSD. This ignores the boot sector, boot loaders, partitions and file systems. It does not matter what OS you had on it, how many partitions or what file system you used. if your very paranoid and want to wait hours more, the run diff against the disk and disk image file to be sure they are an exact copy (never did it and never will).

    Now reboot and upgrade the firmware the way the manufacturer tells you. So now your data is wiped out, big stinkin deal. Fire up the live Linux distro and again attach your backup disk and then enter the following command:

    #dd if=/path/to/backup/disk/ssd_backup.img of=/dev/sda conv=notrunk bs=1024k

    This writes the image file back to the SSD and if all goes well (It has never failed me yet and I have done this dozens of times for various systems) you now have your upgraded firmware with its original contents fully intact.

    You can even mount one or more of the partitions contained within the disk image (under Linux of course) if you do a bit of homework (search google for mounting dd images) or just go here:http://darkdust.net/writings/diskimagesminihowto That tutorial is how I started playing with dd images.

    You can also movethe contents of a smaller cramped disk to larger drives. Works for windows/NTFS too! You simply dd the entire smaller drive to the new drive (works best when both drives are hooked up via sata.) Then you use gparted or some other parted disk GUI to grow the file system on the new drive. Shut down and remove the linux cd/thumb-drive and remove the old disk and move the sata cable from the old disk to the new disk. Boot your PC and if your using windows (2000, XP , Vista, 7) it will run the check disk to verify the volume (DONT SKIP IT!) and reboot. Once it reboots to windows, open up explorer and see that you now magically have all that shiny new space without formatting, reinstalling, adding new drive letters or mounting drives under folders etc. Its transparent!

    Example command:

    #dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/sdb conv=sync,noerror bs=1024k

    sda is the small disk and sdb is the new large disk. I have done that trick multiple times as well with a 100% success rate. My friends were amazed.