SanDisk Optimus Eco SSD: A SAS Interface And Up To 2 TB Of Flash

Features
By published

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.

Results: Sequential Performance

If we could change Intel's SSD DC S3700 in one way, we'd fix its sequential performance. Considering the drive's exceptional showing across the rest of our suite, we never understood why sequential performance ended up being so average.

The Optimus Eco demonstrates no such shortcomings in our sequential read test. It starts off incredibly strong, maintaining a quantifiable lead over Seagate's 600 Pro. At the largest transfer sizes, both the Optimus Eco and 600 Pro top out in excess of 550 MB/s, basically saturating their 6 Gb/s interfaces. Intel's SSD DC S3700 needs those big transfers to even approach 500 MB/s.

Sequential writes aren't as kind to the Optimus Eco. The drive has a hard time getting steady on its feet, and we'd blame shallow queue depths and small transfer sizes for that. As the transfers grow beyond 64 KB, though, SanDisk speeds past the competition on its way to 550 MB/s yet again.

We actually see a lot of drives that claim to be capable of peaking above 500 MB/s in sequential tests, but few able to achieve such a lofty goal in a steady state. The Optimus Eco, however, was just as content writing more than 500 MB/s right out of its box as it was after hours of testing.

12 Comments Comment from the forums
  • tripleX
    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)
    Reply
  • 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 less
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • utomo
    Samsung 1tb need to be reviewed and compare. The price is much cheaper
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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....
    Reply