Mass storage issues
From rotating hard disks to solid state media to eliminating remaining bottlenecks — will the emergence of PCIe-based SSDs redefine mobile computing performance?
(by Conrad. H. Blickenstorfer, March 2018)
It used to be all hard disks
Back in the day, everyone used rotating hard disks. Hard disks were very fast compared to what came before (tape, floppy disks, etc.) but it wasn't easy to tell exactly how fast they were. One measure for a hard disk's performance was access time, i.e. the time it took the disk mechanism to actually start transferring data. That depended on how fast the disk rotated and how quickly the disk's read head could move to a location.
There are many other variables that determine hard disk performance, but in the end it all boils down to the fact that hard disks are hybrid devices, part electronic and part mechanical, and the bottleneck is always the mechanical side.
Then came solid-state drives
Solid-state drives (SSDs) do not have such mechanical issues. It's all electronic, and that makes SSDs inherently faster than rotating disks. Solid-state disks have been available for a good number of years. Given their significant performance advantage, their much smaller size, and their much lower power consumption, one would think SSDs would have quickly replaced hard drives.
That didn't happen for a number of reasons, chief among them price. Initially, the cost per Gigabyte of SSD storage was dozens of times higher than that of Gigabyte of hard disk storage. That meant that even a very low capacity SSD cost much more than a large capacity hard drive, making SSDs unfeasible for all but a few specialized applications.
But they were just too expensive
Over time, however, the cost per SSD Gigabyte dropped significantly, and it dropped much quicker than the cost per HDD Gigabyte of storage. As a result, SSDs became available in some mobile devices as an option. Initially, SSDs weren't a very attractive option because even a small capacity SSD still cost more than a much higher capacity hard disk. It took another couple of years until SSD prices dropped to a point where an SSD with acceptable capacity also had an acceptable price.
And that was when SSDs reached critical mass and began replacing hard disks in mobile devices. Suddenly, the default configuration of some acceptably priced laptops was a smallish SSD, and larger hard disks were the option. That situation was not sub-optimal for users who wanted to upgrade to a new and faster device, but who certainly didn't want to have LESS storage.
SSDs reaching critical mass
That's starting to change now, too. 512GB and 1TB SSDs are becoming readily available, still at a cost, but one that's declining rapidly. At the same time, hard disk capacity seems to have stopped growing. Apple's biggest available hard disk for an iMac, for example, has stagnated at 3TB for several years now. Since my 3TB drive is almost full that means I would not switch to a new iMac with a 1TB SSD because then I would need an additional external drive, which defeats the purpose. But the iMac is a big desktop. On a laptop or, especially, a tablet, a full Terabyte of storage is quite acceptable. And that means the significant speed advantage of SSDs will finally become available to those users who do need a lot of storage on their laptops and tablets.
Advantages of SSDs
So now that we've reached that point, what have we gained?
- Definitely speed. A mobile device equipped with a SSD will almost always outperform one with a hard disk. RuggedPCReview.com's benchmark testing has proved that over and over again.
- Smaller size. SSDs also facilitate smaller, lighter devices. That's a one-way street, of course, as an SSD will fit into a device designed to accommodate a hard disk, but a hard disk usually won't fit into a device built for SSDs.
- More ruggedness. Solid state disk do not have moving parts and are inherently more immune to shock and vibration than rotating hard disks with the seek heads surfing on a thin cushion of air. Altitude isn't an issue, they're immune to magnetism, and SSDs can handle extreme temperatures better than hard disks. The latter often come with disk heaters, but that means extra expense and battery power.
So other than the still higher cost of SSDs, are there any reasons not to use solid state storage instead of rotating media? Not really. And as devices keep getting smaller, thinner, and lighter, soon there won't be a choice. It'll all be solid state.
Not all SSDs are the same
There is, however, one thing to consider: Not all SSDs are the same. We've actually seen SSDs that are slower than hard disks. That's because there are many different types of SSDs with different types of controllers, chips and interfaces. Low-end devices may use eMMC ("embedded MultiMediaCard) solid state storage, essentially a technology that goes back decades.
More sophisticated solid-state disk technologies cost more and provide much better performance. To the extent where picking the right SSD can have significantly more impact on overall performance than the CPU itself.
Unfortunately, leading-edge performance always comes at a cost. Just as there are Intel processors that cost more than an entire premium laptop, state-of-the-art high-performance SSD also cost extra. A fast high-capacity SSD module can easily cost as much as a premium tablet or more.
What does that mean? In essence that as long as cost is an issue, which it almost always is, it's good to keep an eye on emerging SSD technologies and pay close attention to bargains. Bargains can be found when a manufacturer seeks to popularize a new technology by making it available built to a price, perhaps by cutting a feature here or there, or by lowering prices on capacities and features that are no longer at the bleeding edge.
With SSDs, we're now at a point where such "bargain performance" is becoming available in the form of SSD modules that provide enough storage capacity AND faster technology.
Tweaking the SSD
With anything that relates to speed, there is always a bottleneck. With performance-oriented SSDs, for some time now that bottleneck has been the SATA interface between the storage module and the computer. SATA's been around for a decade and a half and maxes out at 600 megabit per second.
The PCIe standard, on the other hand, can reach theoretical throughputs of up to 4 gigabit per second, depending on which PCIe standard is used and how many lanes are available.
We got our first practical demonstration of that in Summer of 2017 when Xplore Technologies managed to get a stunning performance increase in the top-of-the-line configuration of their XSLATE R12 rugged tablet. A prior Xplore XSLATE R12 we had tested in October 2016 came with an Intel Core i7-7500U and a 256GB SanDisk SATA 3 SSD. The Summer 2017 machine Xplore sent us had a Core i7-7600U and a 1TB Intel 600p Series PCIe SSD.
So what is the Intel SSD 600p Series? It's a small memory module. It comes in the M.2 22 x 80 mm form factor and uses a PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 interface.
M.2 is a specification for internal expansion modules that use the PCI Express Mini Card physical card layout and can be built with a PCI Express 3.0 (up to four lanes), Serial ATA 3.0, or USB 3.0 interface. The 22 x 80 refers to the module size in mm. NVMe (NonVolatileMemory) is a protocol that speeds up data transfer between module and computer on a PCIe bus. And PCIe 3.0 x4 means version 3.0 of the PCIe standard, using four lanes.
According to Xplore, the XSLATE R12 has a 2-lane PCIe implementation, which literature suggests would result in a maximum real-world throughput of roughly 1.6GB/s. The Tom's Hardware site examined the Intel 600p 1TB NVMe SSD in detail (see here) and considered it an "entry level" competitor in the NVMe 1TB class, but appealing due to its attractive price (about $350).
Truth be told, between different technologies, interfaces, architectures, implementations, drivers, firmware and optimizations, it gets pretty involved very quickly. So off the cuff, we looked at the roughly 600 megabit per second max throughput of the SATA-based SSD in the last XSLATE R12 we tested, and then the estimated roughly 1.6 gigabit per second of the PCIe-based SSD in the latest test R12 Xplore sent us, and we figured there might be as much as a 2.5X increase in disk performance.
Which is precisely what happened. And that makes a huge difference.
Benchmarking
Xplore XSLATE R12 Benchmarks and Comparisons
|
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
|
Xplore
|
Xplore
|
Xplore
|
Model
|
XSLATE R12 (2017)
|
XSLATE R12 (2016)
|
XSLATE R12 (2014)
|
Processor Type
|
Intel Core
|
Intel Core
|
Intel Core
|
Processor Type: Intel
|
i7-7600U (G7)
|
i7-7500U (G7)
|
4610Y (G4)
|
Code name
|
Kaby Lake
|
Kaby Lake
|
Haswell
|
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
|
15 watts
|
15 watts
|
11.5 watts
|
CPU Clock
|
2.80GHz
|
2.70GHz
|
1.70GHz
|
CPU Turbo
|
3.90GHz
|
3.50GHz
|
2.90GHz
|
CPU Cores/Threads
|
2/4
|
2/4
|
2/4
|
Graphics
|
Intel HD Graphics 620
|
Intel HD Graphics 620
|
Intel HD Graphics 4200
|
Disk
|
1T PCIe SSD
|
256GB SATA/600 SSD
|
128GB SATA/600 SSD
|
CPU Mark
|
5,407.8
|
4,940.7
|
3,569.1
|
2D Graphics Mark
|
646.9
|
613.9
|
501.6
|
Memory Mark
|
1,719.8
|
1,563.3
|
1,222.4
|
Disk Mark
|
10,230.9
|
4,438.2
|
2,243.7
|
3D Graphics Mark
|
598.8
|
568.8
|
410.1
|
Overall PassMark
|
3,978.3
|
2,657.2
|
1,751.8
|
These massive performance improvements brought up a number of questions. First, was this a PassMark benchmark anomaly or would other benchmarks show similarly stunning improvements? We don't know, as the Xplore machine went back before we tried other benchmarks. And even that would have been inconclusive, since our entire benchmark database is PassMark and CrystalMark.
Was it possible that PassMark's weighting of the disk components was too high, which would mean its impact on the overall benchmark result was excessive? Again, we don't know.
Finally, given the massive performance improvement, would everyone else quickly offer PCIe-based SSDs as well? Apparently not. It's March 2018, many months after the amazing finding, and there's been no stampede to PCIe solid state disks. Strange. — Conrad H. Blickenstorfer, March 2018
|