Free Newsletters

   All InfoWorld Newsletters
Storage Adviser | Mario Apicella » Time to bury big-drive "diskosaurs"

March 28, 2008 | Comments: (0)

Time to bury big-drive "diskosaurs"

The EonStor B12 from Infortrend represents an intriguing proposition: an enterprise-class storage solution in miniature, built on 2.5-inch SAS drives. One look at this small-form-factor vision of the future, and you'll be reconsidering the long-term viability of behemoth arrays.

When I first heard about the B12, I was drawn to its potential to reduce power consumption, as well as its small footprint. I have since had the opportunity to begin putting the EonStor B12S through its paces. I will publish the results of my testing in a future review. Here, however, are some initial impressions.

First, the array and the drives arrived at my test lab in one box -- something that is not possible with traditional arrays, which must be shipped with disks stored in separate packaging to keep down the total weight of each box. Moreover, the box, which contained one B12 enclosure with two SAS controllers, two power supply systems, two backup batteries, and 12 drives, as well as cables and rack-mounting rails, weighed less than 20 kilograms (about 43 pounds). Miniature, indeed.

Not only does this compactness cut down shipping costs, but it also reduces the impact that shipping the unit has on the environment, when compared with traditional 12-bay systems with large drives.

Of course, most storage arrays move only once or twice in their lifetime. Yet, multiply that one trip by the number of storage devices shipped worldwide every year, and the difference becomes significant.

How significant? Assume an average 3.5-inch drive (with sleigh) weighs 32 ounces and a 2.5-inch drive weighs 10 ounces. Everything else the same, replacing large drives with smaller units reduces the weight of a single enclosure by more than 16 pounds.

Of course, as you can see from this picture of the EonStor B12, not everything stays the same. The B12 takes advantage of the reduced drive size to shrink every other component to scale, including the enclosure (1U tall), power-supply modules, batteries, and fans.

More important is the shrinking effect the EonStor B12 will have on your datacenter energy bills. When idle, the Seagate Savvio 15K, which the B12 mounts, uses 2.6 watts less than a Seagate Cheetah 15K drive with the same capacity, which translates to a total savings of more than 30 watts for a 12-drive array. Over the life span of the array, this relatively small trickle will transform into serious savings. Couple this with more efficient power supply systems, lower overall heat produced, and a denser layout, and you begin to see the overall impact smaller drives can have on your bottom line.

Often I hear the importance of re-engineering power supplies to achieve greater energy efficiency. But unless we replace larger drives with smaller units, tricks such as these will get us only so far. As I see it, re-engineering current systems for smaller-format drives is the easiest, most effective way to make storage more energy friendly.

Of course, my suggestion requires throwing away the old for the new, but that is a path that we are already walking anyway. Whatever is spinning the bits in your datacenter will be ready for the recycling heap sooner than you think. When that day comes, would you rather replace the old system with a similar backbreaking power hog or a lightweight, pro-environment solution based on 2.5-inch drives?

If you have any hesitation answering that question, take a look at this picture of the 520MB Fujitsu M2624FA that is still in my lab -- I am a pack rat, I know.

Would you want this diskosaur in your system? Obviously not, but don't get confused: The 3.5-inch drives that vendors are shoving down your throat are equally obsolete. The only thing that keeps them alive is their seemingly endless ability to devour ever more data with every new model. I say it's time to look at storage from a different perspective and stop the capacity race -- or at least not make it the driving factor in dictating the design of storage arrays.

Think I am way off? Well, I am bound to secrecy for now, but expect to see another major vendor soon join Infortrend in leading the small-form-factor revolution in storage.

In the meantime, consider this: The B12 is happily idling in my lab at 238 watts. Care to measure how much juice your 3.5-inch-drive arrays are slurping?

Posted by Mario Apicella on March 28, 2008 03:00 AM


RATE THIS ARTICLE:





 

  •  
  • COMMENTS




Hi Mario

I'd suggest before you get too enthusiastic over the 2.5" and 1.5" technologies, you might want to break out your calculator.

First, start with a given amount of capacity (let's say 50TB), and figure out how many of each kind of drive you'll need to support a given raw or protected capacity.

As a quick example, consider that WDC's best 2.5" drive offers 320GB in capacity, vs. other 1TB drives. So you'd need three of them to store the same amount of information.

Now, go do your maths on costs, power, weight, etc. on a per-TB basis.

I'm not saying that smaller form factor drives aren't attractive in some use cases, but it seems that you aren't looking at the situation as an IT buyer would, e.g. what do I pay and what do I get.

Thanks!

Posted by: Chuck Hollis at March 28, 2008 05:38 AM

Hi Chuck,

as you mentioned that SATA drive for laptops from WDC (the Infortrend box mount SAS drives) let me suggest a different quick example: Hitachi GST Travelstar 5K500. With its 500GB capacity we should make some different calculations, don't you agree?

I realize that having to deal with just one drive format makes things much easier for manufacturers, but is it the best possible option also for customers?

Some vendors, (and you probably know it's not just Infortrend) are beginning to offer enterprise class enclosures with small drives.

Perhaps those vendors are realizing that capacity isn't the only factor to consider when choosing a storage solution.

Thank you for posting

Mario

Posted by: Mario Apicella at March 28, 2008 08:21 AM

Mario,

Travelstar 5K500 is a 5400 RPM SATA drive with 12ms seek time as compared to Seagate Barracuda ES.2 7200 RPM SATA 1TB drive w/ 9 ms seek time (2x capacity and 1/3 faster). Furthermore, the max capacity for 2.5” SAS drives is still at 146GB and that is not 15K RPM. This is not to say 2.5” will not take over 3.5”, they will. I am just pointing out that the capacity, price and speed of 3.5” are still much more appealing.

Thanks,

Abtin

Posted by: Abtin Assadi at March 28, 2008 11:02 AM

but who would ever only consider capacity? it doesn't take much smarts to consider everything: capacity, price, performance, operating costs, noise, reliability, etc.

"enterprise" SFF disks are indeed attractive precisely because enterprise workloads are mainly seek-heavy, and thus want small seek distances and lots of spindles. heat, though, is actually not a terribly important argument here, since disks don't dissipate much heat to start with. and holding all else constant, performance is proportional to spindles, which is proportional to heat! not to mention that seeky workloads are precisely the way to keep your disks warmest.

heat is most relevant to nearline, d-d backup, archiving-type systems, where you'd like very large capacity with fairly low activity and wouldn't mind saving some cooling costs.

Posted by: mark hahn at March 28, 2008 03:37 PM

Speed is more important than capacity in a lot of situations as well. If I'm running a 500GB database, I'm gonna be throwing a lot of spindles at it for performance purposes, so it doesn't do me any good to have 12x1TB drives vs 12x73GB drives. And of course once you limit the discussion to 15k RPM drives the 1TB drives leave the discussion pretty darn fast-- AFAIK the largest drives that fast are 300GB.

No, it's not the product for everybody, but as more corporations start wondering about the datacenter's share of the power bill I think the price premium for small form factor drives will be more than offset by the lower cost of operation. And the idea of rack-mounting a 20lb array makes my back very, very happy compared to the behemoth 3U systems we're using now.

Posted by: Dave Pooser at March 28, 2008 05:15 PM

 STORAGE SPRAWL PODCAST
Listen to the latest podcast:
MP3    RSS    Get Podcast    Archive    Mobilize





Technology White Papers

 

InfoWorld Technology Marketplace

» Technology White Papers Library

Technology White Papers by Topic

Technology White Papers E-mail Alert

Find out when the latest white paper is available:
 
 
» BUY A LINK NOW

Sponsored Technology Links