eWEEK content and product recommendations are editorially independent. We may make money when you click on links to our partners. Learn More.
2In Sequential I/O, Disk Delivers Bigger Advantages Than Flash
For sequential writes, disk outshines solid-state drives (SSD), delivering up to 40MB per second with a single 7.2K rpm drive. Ten hard disks equal the sequential throughput of an SSD device at a fraction of the cost. That makes it possible to get a lot more performance from a disk, while leveraging its capacity advantages.
3For Random I/O, Flash Leaves Disks in the Dust
4Amount of Flash Required by Critical Apps Varies Significantly
The working set size (the actual amount of application data that needs to reside on flash) for low sub-millisecond responsiveness is no greater than 10 percent, and that includes the most performance-intensive applications. So most companies don’t need 100 percent flash for predictable read performance.
5Risk of Multiple Drive Failures With Disks Is Lower Than With SSDs
6Economics of Flash-Only Storage Degrades With RAID, Snapshots
Flash storage systems—like any other type of storage systems—have to accommodate for RAID and snapshot data. However, this data takes up precious SSD space, reducing the usable capacity available for application workloads. Factor in the costs associated with overprovisioning flash to prolong overall endurance, and going the all-flash route for all applications can be expensive.
7Drop in Cost of Flash Will Come at Price of Low Endurance
8In HDDs, Performance and Capacity Joined at the Hip
9Flash and HDDs Work Well Together if Designed Properly
The winning storage architecture will allow customers to use the right mix of media (flash and disk) to cater to their diverse and evolving workload requirements.