Fusion-io SSD Setup Screams Along at 1 TB/sec
We think that today's top of the line SSDs are very fast relative to what we're accustomed to using from years with magnetic storage. But if for some reason that's still not fast enough for you, there's Fusion-io's SSD technology that's able to reach a blistering 1 TB per second transfer rate.
Such bandwidth was achieved using Fusion-io's development of the ioDrive Octal, which is a PCI-Express card that holds eight ioMemory Modules -- putting the equivalent capacity and performance of eight ioDrives into a single card. By combining the performance of 220 of these ioDrive Octal cards into a six-rack system, the set up is capable of sustaining over 1 TB of aggregate bandwidth with access latencies under 50 microseconds.
To put that into perspective with today's most common storage technology, achieving a 1 TB/sec. sustained bandwidth would otherwise require close to 55,440 disk drives, 396 SAN controllers, 792 I/O servers and 132 racks of equipment.
"We were eager to take on the challenge of creating a device that meets the intense demands of high performance computing. With this architecture, IOPS are easy. We achieved over a hundred million (100,000,000) IOPS, more than enough performance to meet our customer's requirements. The real power in our architecture was the ability to also scale bandwidth," said Steve Wozniak, chief scientist at Fusion-io. "We look forward to productizing the ioDrive Octal in the future, and bringing the power of this solid-state storage technology from the world of HPC to the enterprise."
A single ioDrive Octal, which itself is a considerable speed demon, is capable of 800,000 IOPS (4k packet size), 6 GB/s bandwidth, 5 TB maximum capacity and comes in a x16 gen-2 double-wide PCI Express form factor.
As for pricing, if you have to ask…
- Monday Deals: Pre-Black Friday Edition Vol. 1
- Blizzard: WarCraft 4 Years Away
- Windows 8 by 2012 as Shown on Microsoft Slide
- Crysis Gets DeLorean Time Traveling Car
- Apple Refuses to Fix Smokers' Computers
- Malicious iPhone Virus Takes Control of Your Phone
- Blizzard, NCSoft Vet Developing Zombie MMO
- Apple Announces Black Friday Sale Without Details
- Microsoft Paying Sites to De-list From Google?
- Microsoft Delays Releasing Open Source Win 7 Tool
- Millions Using Xbox Live's Social Media Features
- Core i9 Engineering Sample Shows 6-Core Power
- Skill Trees Removed From Diablo III
- Tuesday Deals: Pre-Black Friday Edition Part Deux
- Alienware Rigs Have Steam, Portal Pre-Installed
- Contest: Win a Core i7-based Ballistic Gaming PC!
- OS Xbox Pro Mod: Four HDDs, Windows 7, OS X
- Chrome OS Benchmarked Against Moblin, Ubuntu
can it load...1000 crysis?
can it load...1000 crysis?
JUST. STOP.
As for pricing, if you have to ask…
Now that's impressive
As for pricing, if you have to ask…
JUST $10000000...!
And your soul.....
Did I read that correctly, 1TB, not 1Tb!?
I think I just shat my self.
Da-amn!
You push your power button, and the Windows log-in screen is already waiting by the time you look up...
mother of...
Wow! Personally I would be satisfied with just 1 GB/s. That would help out a lot when editing and working with video.
Not surprising coming from The Woz.
The numbers are a bit of a marketing lie. It's aggregate throughput using 220 of the cards. So if your system has 220 PCI-e slots, you can try putting it all in one box, otherwise it's going to take dozens of systems. Then, in addition to buying 220 of these very expensive cards, you have the expense of buying all of the systems they go into. It's still pretty cool that they managed it all, but it isn't really a solution for normal folks, and certainly isn't something to compare to when talking drive performance.
JUST $10000000...!And your soul.....
and 20 virgin's souls...
The numbers are a bit of a marketing lie. It's aggregate throughput using 220 of the cards. So if your system has 220 PCI-e slots, you can try putting it all in one box, otherwise it's going to take dozens of systems. Then, in addition to buying 220 of these very expensive cards, you have the expense of buying all of the systems they go into. It's still pretty cool that they managed it all, but it isn't really a solution for normal folks, and certainly isn't something to compare to when talking drive performance.
you would have noticed it in the article if u cared to read it... this is obviously for servers.. the only marketing bs i could think of is that they didnt mention the cost difference between the this setup and the traditional hdd setup... however, they clearly wins in term of space...
Wow! Personally I would be satisfied with just 1 GB/s. That would help out a lot when editing and working with video.
well, they do sell pcie ssd by unit of 1 which could go to 700mb/s... honestly, i dont think we will benefit much going over even the normal 300mb/s... sure, you can transfer file faster.. but that's about it... then we're bound by the cpu and the software... boot up wont really go much faster... just maybe in the future when we need the bigger bandwidth for the ever increasing file size... far future that is...
Why doesn't the author name the price? "If you have to ask..."
This isn't a review, it's an article about a curiosity. These news stories shouldn't be so vague that I have to go fishing for info on my own.
Hopefully this isn't setup in RAID zero, where if one drive fails you lose
everything.
you would have noticed it in the article if u cared to read it...
Ok smartass, I did read the article. The difference between us is I actually understood what was being written. It isn't a single server, single volume solution they claim results for. It's a proprietary multi-card setup. As such, they could claim any numbers they want, they just have to scale up the number of cards used. The throughput claimed is NOT AVAILABLE to ANY single user/single system/single volume setup. Therefore, not really a good comparison for regular HDDs, nor a claim of performance that is valid for 99.9999999% of the world. Get it? GIT!
the cool thing about it is the Woz is working on it.
Are we talking about little "b" or big "B"? There's a big difference.
its so fast things load before you click now the human element is slowing us down D:
it is okay but i just dont have a rack system. I also dont have more place in this computer to put that card with all my slots using graphics cards. Maybe if they added more slots to a motherboard this could be useful to me. i just think their be bottle necking on the motherboard because the lanes to cores and things would be to small. i always thought they should make those lanes huge so nothing holds you back. i dont want to be hitting any walls when i still something extremely fast into my system. i still would like to see some testing on this with PC games as well as other software.
this is incredible, 400 windows of porn playing with no lag.....imagine the possibilities
One day, it will be beautiful to load everything in less than a second.. One day.. It will be mine :3
Yes ...but can it BOOT?
wow that is killer. I know it way out of my price but the future looks good with new tech.. OK I will sell my house for it....
Why doesn't the author name the price? "If you have to ask..."This isn't a review, it's an article about a curiosity. These news stories shouldn't be so vague that I have to go fishing for info on my own.
"If you have to ask then you can't afford it"
the price scales with IOPS
on a more practical note... what is the performance of one? I'm fairly certain the cache in my cpu doesn't even go that fast, never mind all the bottle necks in bewteen! it's good to see that we are making headway in the biggest bottle neck in the system.
I suppose it doesn't really matter what the specs would be for personal use, as even one of these cards is probably over $10k
In 10 years may be we'll all be able to afford one of these beasts. Until then SSD's need to start dropping in price and increasing in storage.
You push your power button, and the Windows log-in screen is already waiting by the time you look up...
No.. because you simply don't use Windows!