Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Benchmark Results: I/O Performance And Access Time

Changing Of The Guard: 2.5” Hard Drives In The Enterprise
By

Access Time

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 30 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    chefboyeb , April 18, 2010 10:06 AM
    I just love the fact that everything in the computer hardware industry seems to be getting better... Oh! Still not quite sure about fermi though... I think i like my breakfast just the way it is, and not overcooked...
  • -1 Hide
    jeraldjunkmail , April 18, 2010 11:06 AM
    I am building my home fileserver right now out of 6 500gb hitachi 7200rpm drives, all 2.5", in a mini-itx case... The whole point of this is to get HUGE storage at as close to the same speed as an SSD as I can. 3tb of SSD would cost you what....?
  • -2 Hide
    HalfHuman , April 18, 2010 11:38 AM
    jeraldjunkmailI am building my home fileserver right now out of 6 500gb hitachi 7200rpm drives, all 2.5", in a mini-itx case... The whole point of this is to get HUGE storage at as close to the same speed as an SSD as I can. 3tb of SSD would cost you what....?

    i guess it does not make much sense to use ssds for fileresvers at least at the current capacities and prices. i believe that your 6 drives still cant match a single good ssd (intel, indlix, sandofrce etc) in random access.
    i guess this whole ssd will get just plain crazy in the next years and mecahnical drives will just look so weak. i also think that ssd technology will get phased out quite quick and the next thing will take over in a few years (3-5?). i say this because even if ssds seem so much better they have some significant weaknesses. another thing is that we are already using 25nm chips. i know that when talking about 10nm you can count the atoms. couple that with the wearing out nature of nand memory and you get stuck. i also see that nand density is not that impressive... at least as it is today... and we are already using 25-34nm... ssds are much better than mechanical but i see them getting maxed out quite fast. just my 2 cents!
  • 5 Hide
    brendano257 , April 18, 2010 12:04 PM
    jeraldjunkmailI am building my home fileserver right now out of 6 500gb hitachi 7200rpm drives, all 2.5", in a mini-itx case... The whole point of this is to get HUGE storage at as close to the same speed as an SSD as I can. 3tb of SSD would cost you what....?


    Still, SSD's on a network are near pointless. On a 1Gb/s (GigaBit) you will still only see ~125MB/s (MegaByte), most SSD's run at 130MB/s and up. The network is slowing you down more than you know, not to mention if your router/switch or any hardware in between is running at 100 Mb/s (MegaBit) then you'll only get about 10% of the HD's total speed. Theres no reason for SSD on a network really.
  • -4 Hide
    mister g , April 18, 2010 12:12 PM
    If anybody can answer this please do. My question is does all the facts about enterprise HDDs also apply to consumer HDDs. I'm asking because my little bro's PC is going to need a hard drive replacement and I'm wondering what's the fastest 3.5" HDD and whether a 2.5" would be faster.
  • 2 Hide
    niteshadow53 , April 18, 2010 12:25 PM
    You could get a Velociraptor... That's pretty fast...
  • -3 Hide
    jeraldjunkmail , April 18, 2010 12:35 PM
    brendano257Still, SSD's on a network are near pointless. On a 1Gb/s (GigaBit) you will still only see ~125MB/s (MegaByte), most SSD's run at 130MB/s and up. The network is slowing you down more than you know, not to mention if your router/switch or any hardware in between is running at 100 Mb/s (MegaBit) then you'll only get about 10% of the HD's total speed. Theres no reason for SSD on a network really.


    My next home I will run fiber optics for networking in the walls... Couple years from now... Hopefully that will get easier to implement for the end user as home file servers become more of a utility than a gadget. Keep in mind, the expected lifespan of a server (even if I build it myself) is longer than that of a desktop... And I want to make use of the storage now...
  • 7 Hide
    jeraldjunkmail , April 18, 2010 12:37 PM
    Furthermore, Bill Gates once said that no-one would ever need more than 640kb of memory...
  • 0 Hide
    zdzichu , April 18, 2010 1:29 PM
    SSD are very good addendum to file server. While majority of data is stored on rotating platters, "hot" stuff is relegated to crazy fast SSD. You either got it seamlessly using ZFS (with L2ARC and ZIL on SSD) or with little excercise when using Linux (mdraid's external metadata, ext3/4 journal device and FS-Cache on SSD).
  • -1 Hide
    kewlx , April 18, 2010 4:22 PM
    brendano257Still, SSD's on a network are near pointless. On a 1Gb/s (GigaBit) you will still only see ~125MB/s (MegaByte), most SSD's run at 130MB/s and up. The network is slowing you down more than you know, not to mention if your router/switch or any hardware in between is running at 100 Mb/s (MegaBit) then you'll only get about 10% of the HD's total speed. Theres no reason for SSD on a network really.
    Well we can only really get down to about 5 nm at the best and then graphite CPUs are going to take over considering they use less heat energy and can hit 50 GHz and those I bet will start back out at around 50 nm and work their way down again till we can't get any smaller (roughly 5nm) and then a new type of conductive and so on and so forth. Technology has taken one of the biggest leaps in mans history and this will just push us further and faster than we have before and for cheaper. I mean who wouldn't love have a 50 GHz cpu plus 1 PB of storage with 100 GB of ddr5 ram
  • -2 Hide
    Kelavarus , April 18, 2010 4:43 PM
    kewlxWell we can only really get down to about 5 nm at the best and then graphite CPUs are going to take over considering they use less heat energy and can hit 50 GHz and those I bet will start back out at around 50 nm and work their way down again till we can't get any smaller (roughly 5nm) and then a new type of conductive and so on and so forth. Technology has taken one of the biggest leaps in mans history and this will just push us further and faster than we have before and for cheaper. I mean who wouldn't love have a 50 GHz cpu plus 1 PB of storage with 100 GB of ddr5 ram


    Really just depends on if there was anything that would require it. Sure, I could have a petabyte of storage today, true, at a ridiculous cost. This definitely could benefit businesses. But consumers? Much of content is moving towards being internet server based anyway (Streaming games via Onlive and Otoy, streaming media, cloud computing, etc... etc..), really, consumer hardware is getting to the point where it hardly NEEDS to advance.

    Even for things like 3D artists, imagine one day Autodesk gets the 50ghz CPUs you envision, PBs of storage, hundreds of GB of RAM, and instead of rendering on your computer, you render on theirs, thousands of times faster.

    ... Of course, people will complain about privacy and yadah yadah, but I dunno. They'd also complain of the increased price that having their own hardware will be bring. Will be interesting to see where things go in the next decade or two.
  • -2 Hide
    kewlx , April 18, 2010 4:55 PM
    KelavarusReally just depends on if there was anything that would require it. Sure, I could have a petabyte of storage today, true, at a ridiculous cost. This definitely could benefit businesses. But consumers? Much of content is moving towards being internet server based anyway (Streaming games via Onlive and Otoy, streaming media, cloud computing, etc... etc..), really, consumer hardware is getting to the point where it hardly NEEDS to advance. Even for things like 3D artists, imagine one day Autodesk gets the 50ghz CPUs you envision, PBs of storage, hundreds of GB of RAM, and instead of rendering on your computer, you render on theirs, thousands of times faster.... Of course, people will complain about privacy and yadah yadah, but I dunno. They'd also complain of the increased price that having their own hardware will be bring. Will be interesting to see where things go in the next decade or two.


    Yes. but like you said the privacy thing will come in and I sure not many people are going to actually use that much data but to have those cpus at that speed will benefit us greatly in applications and rendering huge amounts of Data for cad and such the ram would be over kill at 100 GB but even 12 or 16 GB is starting to replace 6 GB corner pocket. I am quite interested in seeing how the future plays out also for consumers like us and if we just go online or will be having our own amazing machines.
  • -3 Hide
    loomis86 , April 18, 2010 5:00 PM
    I had a strange dream awhile back. I was building my home PC from scratch...and the harddrive was mounted on a card that fit into a slot on the motherboard in the back...similar location/orientation of a modem or ethernet card. When I woke up I started thinking about that. why don't they make harddrive slots and card mounted harddrives? It makes sense doesn't it?
  • 2 Hide
    kewlx , April 18, 2010 5:19 PM
    loomis86I had a strange dream awhile back. I was building my home PC from scratch...and the harddrive was mounted on a card that fit into a slot on the motherboard in the back...similar location/orientation of a modem or ethernet card. When I woke up I started thinking about that. why don't they make harddrive slots and card mounted harddrives? It makes sense doesn't it?

    They do for sdds
  • -1 Hide
    zybch , April 18, 2010 8:33 PM
    What ever happened to the hybrid hard drive that all the big drive companies were going on and on about a few years back?
    A standard drive with a couple of gigs of non-volatile cache would have neatly bridge the game. In fact Silverstone have a product (SSD Boost) that lets you use an old SSD in conjunction with a regular disk for very fast access and transfer speeds of commonly requested data. When I bought mine the performance of my system jumped up a LOT more than when I upgraded from a Q6600 to an i7-860.
  • 1 Hide
    zybch , April 18, 2010 8:45 PM
    jeraldjunkmailFurthermore, Bill Gates once said that no-one would ever need more than 640kb of memory...


    Actually, he never said that.
    It was, and keeps being attributed to him by idiots who think it will gain them points. He has said many stupid things (like most tech guys in the position he had - Steve Jobs 'nobody wants to watch video on their iPod'), but the 640k thing being attributed to him in '81 isn't his.
  • -2 Hide
    Shin-san , April 18, 2010 9:48 PM
    mister gIf anybody can answer this please do. My question is does all the facts about enterprise HDDs also apply to consumer HDDs. I'm asking because my little bro's PC is going to need a hard drive replacement and I'm wondering what's the fastest 3.5" HDD and whether a 2.5" would be faster.

    Somewhat. This all depends on what you can afford to spend. Desktop hard drives all benchmark at different speeds, so you'll have to do a little bit of research. To many people, it really doesn't matter. If you are using a drive to hoard music, pictures, and video, just about any new hard drive is fast enough.

    For the OS, swap files, temp files, and so forth, a fast hard drive will make the OS respond faster. Your gaming frame rate won't go up more than 1-2 fps unless your old hard drive is THAT bad.

    Enterprise hardware is more expensive usually because they are manufactured with stricter tolerances vs consumer models, or have specifications that exceed the average customer's need.
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , April 18, 2010 10:31 PM
    In practice, a 2U Server can accomodate 24 pieces of 2.5" drives. Largest capacity for 2.5" drive is 600GB. 24x600=14.4 TB. a 2U Server can accomodate 12 pieces of 3.5" drives. The Largest capacity for 3.5" drive is 2TB. 12x2=24 TB. Where is the density advantage of 2.5" drives? Simple math! Plus in Enterprise market 600GB Velociraptor is more expensive than an Ultrastar 2TB. 2.5" drive costs double in the same density ! If you calculate the power draw, cooling costs for density, your tests and conclusions go down the drain. Also most of the blade setups now connected to SAN running VMs. They may use 2.5" drives to load ESX Server or other OS but main storage is SAN. Unless the application requires insane IOPs, main storage is 3.5" drives. I cannot believe what am I reading. Fortunately most of the Enterprise IT can do the feasibility and math better than the editor.
  • -2 Hide
    Nexus52085 , April 19, 2010 12:27 AM
    I sooo thought this was going to be a Star Trek article lol
  • 1 Hide
    tommysch , April 19, 2010 2:37 PM
    jeraldjunkmailMy next home I will run fiber optics for networking in the walls... Couple years from now... Hopefully that will get easier to implement for the end user as home file servers become more of a utility than a gadget. Keep in mind, the expected lifespan of a server (even if I build it myself) is longer than that of a desktop... And I want to make use of the storage now...


    The lifespan in the enterprise that is... Outdated servers have a better ROI, but they are still outdated. Your array will be obsolete in a year or 2.

    BTW speed is not paramount in a NAS. You are limited by the Ethernet at 110MB/s in the best scenario.

    Capacity > Redundancy > speed
Display more comments