Source: THG – Keywords: hyperdrive4, ssd
Categories: Hardware
Inside The HyperDrive 4
The inside has changed a bit: the DIMM sockets have been moved to the sides, making room for an optional 2.5" UltraATA drive that is used as a permanent backup device in case of a power failure. The device automatically backs up the data onto an attached hard drive or Flash SSD, and it automatically starts restoring the data into the memory once power is restored. However, you should pay close attention to using a storage device that holds at least as much data as the memory, because the 16 GB Samsung Flash SSD we used had a net capacity of only 15.5 GB. Since our memory capacity was 16 GB, the total capacity was reduced to 15.5 GB.
We were able to mix memory modules of different capacities, but only as long as the same capacities were used within one bank. Each side inside the device represents a memory bank. We mixed four 512 MB DIMMs with four 1 GB DIMMs, which did not have an impact on performance, as there is no multi-channel operation. The good thing is that any ECC DDR1 memory can be used (DDR200, DDR333 or DDR400).
HyperOS states that the HyperDrive 4 requires 12 to 14 W, which is exactly what we measured (14.2 W max).
HyperOS Performance Comparison
Source: HyperOS.
Due to time constraints, we haven’t verified all the statements that HyperOS makes in this table, and the results do vary between different systems, but we tried some of them during the testing. Please take the numbers as an indicator rather than given facts, as they’re from the manufacturer. I decided to include this table simply because it provides a very good overview of what a RAM-based solid state hard drive can do outside of what we can explain by our standard benchmarks. Simply put, it cuts down latencies to a fraction of what we’re used to; this is nothing that a Flash drive has been capable of.
- Previous page The HyperDrive 4 By HyperOS
- Next page Solid State Drive Comparison Table
- The Terabyte Battle Continues: Enter Seagate
- 6 Bare Metal Backup and Recovery Options
- Parallel Processing, Part 2: RAM and HDD
- WD Caviar GP: The Green 1 TB Drive
- SAS Hard Drives: 15,000 vs. 10,000 RPM
- Flash-Based Hard Drives Are Here
- Unified Serial RAID Controllers for PCI Express
- RAID Scaling Charts, Part 2
- Enthusiast 2.5-inch HDDs: Speed or Capacity?
- Should You Care About Hybrid Hard Drives?
I'm surprised the RAID controller doesn't get itself all in a twist bating along at those speeds!
Great article THG
But... I have been monitoring the progress of the Hyperdrives (or not!!) over the past few years... The Hyperdrive IV (long awaited) has been around for months... So why have THG taken so long to produce this article???
We get subjected to latest GPU wars (which never show MINIMUM framerates) or Intel CPU... Thats great when they introduce something new (Netburst->Centrino->Core) but otherwise is pretty dull... Time to put the innovation back in THG!!
As for the Hyperdrive IV its a crock of **** because HyperOS Systems _still_ have not sorted out a SATA-300 link for it!! Mind you at least it is no longer vapour-ware (like it was for 2-3 years of development post product announcment)... An SDRAM base Hyperdrive V (?) should saturate a 3Gbit link and only then will you totally kick the butt of any other drive on the planet!! The benchmarks results would change radically then!!
Ah looking forward to 2008!! Donations to the "Bob Build a Server Fund" gratefully received :-)
Bob
Well forget all this and look over here:
http://www.fusionio.com/
They have FAR more bang for your buck.
It will be expensive in the beginning (everything is in IT). Once this filters through to the normal user it will DESTROY anything that SATAII can throw at it. 100,000 io/s, the benchmarks speak for themselves.
doa_cp:
OK the price may be good but the life span isn't. The Hyperdrive will last a lot longer (with decent ECC RAM). Also I would rather have a generic SATA-2 interface than suffer the driver headaches of a PCIe interface. Could you ever install an OS on one - I doubt it!! (Especially Windows of course!!)
I am interested in the performance for RAID-0 cheap CF cards with SATA adapters hanging off a good RAID card with 256Mb+ of cache ram. 8x CF 8Gb cards could have interesting performance numbers!!
Also the individual CF cards could be replaced as they wear out and the investment in CF IDE-SATA adapters and Hardware RAID card amortilised over time... Still waiting, waiting, waiting for THG to pull their collective fingers out and do a decent article on this subject (and not the pansy assed one that came out this year).
Bob
BobWya,
what do you mean the life span is not very long? Its more than a hard drive, and just as good as a CF card.
I would think that drier support would be extremely good, it is aimed at the server market, but if they want windows sales then 2003 and XP are (almost) identical so drivers would not be a problem.
You are right about OS installation though, that is until mainbaords accept PCIe as a boot device (could wait a LONG time for that).
I don't know that I'd want to install an OS on it though, especially windows (think pagefiles!!).
I reckon that it will kick ass as a database/webserver storage solution, maybe just a bridge too far for "normal" pc users.
doa_cp
I guess just losing storage slowely ain't so bad (through wear leveling). I got a new Seagate HD in the Summer and last month one of the heads started aqua-planning on the harddisk. So you're right when you think of HD lifespans...
However I was pitting your PCIe drive against a bank of RAID-0 CF cards or a Hyperdrive V (?? - SATA-1 interface is a waste of money) Now the later may be expensive but it should last a longtime (SDRAM lifetime)!!
Bob