SanDisk Optimus Eco SSD: A SAS Interface And Up To 2 TB Of Flash
Consolidation drastically changed the face of enterprise solid-state storage in 2013. One of the bigger moves was SanDisk's acquisition of SMART Storage Systems. Today, we're looking at the first branded SAS-based SSD to come from that purchase.
Testing SanDisk's Optimus Eco
Test Hardware | |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E), 32 nm, 3.3 GHz, LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3, Turbo Boost Enabled |
Motherboard | Intel DX79SI, X79 Express |
Memory | G.Skill Ripjaws Z-Series (4 x 4 GB) DDR3-1600 @ DDR3-1600, 1.5 V |
System Drive | Intel SSD 320 160 GB SATA 3Gb/s |
Host Bus Adapter | LSI SAS 9300-8e |
Tested Drives | SanDisk Optimus Eco SAS SSD 400 GB |
Graphics | AMD FirePro V4800 1 GB |
Power Supply | OCZ ModXStream Pro 700 W |
System Software and Drivers | |
Operating System | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate |
DirectX | DirectX 11 |
Driver | Graphics: ATI 8.883 |
Benchmark Suite | |
Iometer v1.1.0 | Four Workers, 4 KB Random: LBA=Full, Span Varying Queue Depths |
ATTO | v2.4.7, 2 GB, QD=4 |
Custom | C++, 8 MB Sequential, QD=4 |
Enterprise Testing: Iometer Workloads | Read | Write | 512 Bytes | 1 KB | 2 KB | 4 KB | 8 KB | 16 KB | 32 KB | 64 KB | 128 KB | 512 KB |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Database | 67% | 100% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 100% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
File Server | 80% | 100% | 10% | 5% | 5% | 60% | 2% | 4% | 4% | 10% | n/a | n/a |
Web Server | 100% | 100% | 22% | 15% | 8% | 23% | 15% | 2% | 6% | 7% | 1% | 1% |
The Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA), a working group made up of SSD, flash, and controller vendors, has a testing procedure that attempts to control as many of the variables inherent to SSDs as possible. SNIA’s Solid State Storage Performance Test Specification (SSS PTS) is a great resource for enterprise SSD testing. The procedure does not define what tests should be run, but rather the way in which they are run. This workflow is broken down into four parts:
- Purge: Purging puts the drive at a known starting point. For SSDs, this normally means Secure Erase.
- Workload-Independent Preconditioning: A prescribed workload that is unrelated to the test workload.
- Workload-Based Preconditioning: The actual test workload (4 KB random, 128 KB sequential, and so on), which pushes the drive towards a steady state.
- Steady State: The point at which the drive’s performance is no longer changing for the variable being tracked.
These steps are critical when testing SSDs. It’s incredibly easy to not fully condition the drive and still observe out-of-box behavior, which may lead one to think that it’s steady-state. These steps are also important when going between random and sequential writes.
For all performance tests in this review, the SSS PTS was followed to ensure accurate and repeatable results.
All tests employ random data, when available. SanDisk's Optimus Eco does not perform any data compression prior to writing, so there is no difference in performance-based data patterns.
For comparison purposes, we evaluated the Eco against the Intel SSD DC S3700 and Seagate 600 Pro. While both of these drives are SATA-based (compared to the Optimus Eco's SAS interface), we believe the comparison remains valid considering each product's specifications relative to the rest of the field, Also, in enterprise environments, the availability of SAS and SATA connections is very similar.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Current page: Testing SanDisk's Optimus Eco
Prev Page SanDisk's Guardian Technology, Broken Down Next Page Results: 4 KB Random Performance And Latency-
tripleX When aming this statement, did you take Littles Law into consideration:Reply
Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms) -
jkrui01 toms, your are full of sh*t , consider this as my last read on your site, why not put the samsung pro in the article? because it would win, cheaper and faster.Reply -
danwat1234 7 watts active power consumption? With the word 'Eco' on the front? Ummm huh? Non-eco SSDs only take maybe 3.5w at full tilt and less than 2w when idle, often around 1w or lessReply -
Haserath 12177235 said:toms, your are full of sh*t , consider this as my last read on your site, why not put the samsung pro in the article? because it would win, cheaper and faster.
The Samsung Pro is not an enterprise drive. They were comparing Intel's enterprise drive vs Sandisk's.
-
robert3892 4000 dollars for a 2TB drive? Even in the enterprise I see very few companies rolling out cash for something like this when a mechanical enterprise style hard drive can be bought for far less.Reply -
drewriley 12177473 said:7 watts active power consumption? With the word 'Eco' on the front? Ummm huh? Non-eco SSDs only take maybe 3.5w at full tilt and less than 2w when idle, often around 1w or less
Many consumer SATA drives are a lot less, but enterprise drives aren't always quite that low. The S3700, at 800GB, is 6W typical and 8W burst. The Eco isn't quite as 'eco' at 400GB, but for 2TB, is actually pretty good. Many of the PCIe add-in SSDs that provide better performance at the same capacity are at least 10-15W and sometimes 25W. There aren't a lot of 6Gbps SAS SSD comparisons, now that 12Gbps drives are out, but even the Toshiba MK line is rated at 6.5W. We plan on doing more power consumption testing in the future. -
drewriley 12178862 said:Samsung 1tb need to be reviewed and compare. The price is much cheaper
As was said earlier, the Samsung 840 products are not enterprise class. They do not provide the endurance or power loss protection. They could possibly be used in workstations, but not beyond that. Samsung does offer the 843T, but that product is more in line with the Intel S3500 and does not have the random write performance to come close to the Eco. The 843T is also much more expensive than the 840 series. -
drewriley 12180251 said:4000 dollars for a 2TB drive? Even in the enterprise I see very few companies rolling out cash for something like this when a mechanical enterprise style hard drive can be bought for far less.
When comparing to HDD, there isn't a single SSD that will come close on price, enterprise or not. On the flip side, there isn't a single HDD that can come close on performance either. In order to get that much flash storage, you were previously limited to multiple SSDs or PCIe add-in cards, the Eco allows you to have that capacity in a smaller form-factor while drawing less power. Considering the $/GB, which is in line for it's class, it makes sense since there are plenty of enterprise customers buying 800GB drives, at least enough that companies keep producing them. -
drewriley 12173519 said:When aming this statement, did you take Littles Law into consideration:
Every single one-second average falls between 28,500 and 38,000 IOPS (0.84 and 1.12 ms)
No, we didn't, but can you be a little more clear with your question? I am not an expert in the area, but the law, as it applies to performance testing, is valid if the number of jobs in the system is equal to those being completed. Meaning that no new jobs are created in the system and no jobs are lost forever. So, if jobs were being lost, you might see consistent performance centered around the bottleneck, which is not the device under test. Since the system is artificially creating and tracking IOs, I don't believe any are being lost or accidentally created. Also, with our Enterprise Video testing, which I wrote to test a specific use-case, the data is generated and validated as it is written, so there is no chance of data loss. If that doesn't answer your question, please let me know, I am always interested in new subjects....