Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Fusion-io SSD Setup Screams Along at 1 TB/sec

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 36 comments

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…

Discuss
Display all 36 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    tipoo , November 24, 2009 5:13 PM
    some_random_user01can it load...1000 crysis?


    JUST. STOP.
  • 14 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , November 24, 2009 5:49 PM
    I think I just shat my self.
Other Comments
  • 26 Hide
    tipoo , November 24, 2009 5:13 PM
    some_random_user01can it load...1000 crysis?


    JUST. STOP.
  • 2 Hide
    tester24 , November 24, 2009 5:16 PM
    Now that's impressive
  • 2 Hide
    the_one111 , November 24, 2009 5:24 PM
    itadakimasuAs for pricing, if you have to ask…

    JUST $10000000...!







    And your soul.....
  • 6 Hide
    wildwell , November 24, 2009 5:39 PM
    Did I read that correctly, 1TB, not 1Tb!?
  • 14 Hide
    Gin Fushicho , November 24, 2009 5:49 PM
    I think I just shat my self.
  • -3 Hide
    jellico , November 24, 2009 5:58 PM
    Da-amn!
  • 6 Hide
    Transmaniacon , November 24, 2009 6:09 PM
    You push your power button, and the Windows log-in screen is already waiting by the time you look up...
  • -1 Hide
    leo2kp , November 24, 2009 6:12 PM
    mother of...
  • 1 Hide
    ravewulf , November 24, 2009 6:16 PM
    Wow! Personally I would be satisfied with just 1 GB/s. That would help out a lot when editing and working with video.
  • 0 Hide
    bfstev , November 24, 2009 6:19 PM
    Not surprising coming from The Woz.
  • -1 Hide
    chuckwagon , November 24, 2009 6:21 PM
    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.
  • 3 Hide
    wira020 , November 24, 2009 6:35 PM
    the_one111JUST $10000000...!And your soul.....


    and 20 virgin's souls...
  • 1 Hide
    wira020 , November 24, 2009 6:53 PM
    chuckwagonThe 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...

    ravewulfWow! 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...
  • 1 Hide
    nonxcarbonx , November 24, 2009 7:07 PM
    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.
  • -1 Hide
    autoimmune , November 24, 2009 7:17 PM
    Hopefully this isn't setup in RAID zero, where if one drive fails you lose
    everything.
  • -2 Hide
    chuckwagon , November 24, 2009 7:25 PM
    wira020you 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!
  • -1 Hide
    thackstonns , November 24, 2009 7:36 PM
    the cool thing about it is the Woz is working on it.
  • -1 Hide
    alvine , November 24, 2009 8:07 PM
    its so fast things load before you click now the human element is slowing us down D:
Display more comments