Understanding Intrinsic Characteristics and System Implications of Flash Memory

based Solid State Drives

Embedded Lab.Kim Sewoog

Feng Chen, David A. Koufaty, and Xiaodong Zhang2009 ACM SIGMETRICS/Performance

Solid State Drive(SSD) “pivotal technology”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJMGAdpCLVg&feature=fvw

Motivation

HDD SSD

SSD Internals Array of flash memory packages Flash Translation Layer(FTL) in the SSD controller

Hybrid mapping, Over-Provisioning, Using the original host interface(SATA) for compatibility Interleaving, DMA for data processing, low power comsumption, etc…

SSD Block Diagram

< SSD Block Diagram >

The common belief Accesses to SSD are uncorrelated with access patterns!

Betrayal Unexpected performance issues Uncertain behavior

SSD is not just another ‘faster’ disk! We need to understand

intrinsic limits unexpected performance behavior

Belief and betrayal of SSD

7 questions1. Access Patterns of workloads2. Random writes3. Caching for optimizing performance4. Interference between read and write operations5. Background operation effects6. Internal fragmentation7. System implications

Experiments and analysis

Solid State Drives

Experiment System DellTM PowerEdgeTM 1900 server

Benchmarks Intel® Open Storage Toolkit : generate various types of I/O workloads blktrace / blkparse : trace and parse I/O activities (completion event)

Measurement environment

Bandwidths 4 distinct workloads : Random/Sequential Read/Write Random workload : 4KB request size, 1024MB storage space Sequential workload : 256KB request size 32 parallel jobs, direct I/O, 30 seconds Comparison with harddisk (WD1600JS)

General Tests

Various combinations of factors 3 access patterns : Sequential / Random / Stride 10 seconds running, one job, synchronous I/O Full utilization for initialization (using 256KB sequential write)

Micro-benchmark Workloads

Read operations on the SSD SSD-L : uniform distribution of latencies SSD-M/H : non-uniform distribution of latencies

Reason : ① specification② a readahead mechanism③ multi-plane operations④ interleaving

Distribution of access latencies

65% 65%

Write operations on the SSD SSD-L : non-uniform distribution of latencies SSD-M/H : uniform distribution of latencies

Independent of workload access patterns

Distribution of access latencies

88%

over 90%

Sequential vs. non-sequential writes on SSD-L (seems to) use a small buffer Sequential write : stripped Non-sequential write : no-stripped

Distribution of access latencies

64 requests

from host to buffer

initiate the prog. process & write data into flash memory in parallel

from buffer to register

Large RAM cache(disk cache) Using hdparm tool to enable and disable the disk cache Disk cache off : increase of latencies both SSD-M/H Performance comparision between SSD-M/H without disk cache

SSD-H is good performance -> SLC

Disk cache effect of SSDs

Writes : high-cost internal operations Cleaning and asynchronous write-back of dirty data from the disk cache Negatively affect foreground read operations

Reads : competition for buffer space with writes Break sequential patterns

4 workload patterns1) Read(n) + Write(n)2) Write(n) + Read(n)3) Read(n) + Write(n+1)4) Read(n) + Write(n+4MB)

Interference between read/write opera-tions

only non-sequential pattern simultaneously, sequential pattern

SSD-L Substantial degradation SSD-L optimizes performance for sequential writes

Interference between read/write opera-tions

Non-shared buffer

Non-sequential write

SSD-M/H

Interference between read/write opera-tions

readahead effectrandom read la-

tencyasynchronous

write-back

Writes lead almost background operations Sequential workload using request size of 4KB Request type : random (50% write requests) interval time : 10ms

Background operation effects

disk cache

Background operations are completed during the idle periods !

Randomness effects (only SSD-L) Random write : random range from 1GB to 30GB Stride write : stride step from 4KB to 128MB Request size : 4KB

Workload randomness effects

① metadata synchroniza-tion

② log block merging

16MB: individual mapping unit

Internal fragmentation Invalid pages in flash memory blocks Cleaning efficiency : block num x valid page num - read/write, block num - erase Non-continuous physical pages : readahead mechanism is not effective

Internal fragmentation

No readahead effect

Over-provisioning(25% of the SSD capacity)

Many well understood features of SSDs Many unexpected performance issues

1. Access Patterns of workloads2. Random writes3. Caching for optimizing performance4. Interference between read and write operations5. Background operation effects6. Internal fragmentation7. System implications

Conclusion

Reference N. Agrawal, V. Prabhakaran, T. Wobber, J. D. Davis, M. Manasse, and

R. Panigrahy. “Design tradeoffs for SSD performance”, In Proc. of USENIX’08, 2008.

Blktrace. http://linux.die.net/man/8/blktrace. S. Lee, D. Park, T. Chung, D. Lee, S. Park, and H. Song. “A log buffer

based flash translation layer using fully associative sector translation”. In IEEE Tran. on Embedded Computing Systems, 2007.

M. Mesnier. Intel open storage toolkit. http://www.sourceforge.org/projects/intel-iscsi.

V. Prabhakaran, T. L. Rodeheffeer, and L. Zhou. “Transactional flash.” In Proc. of OSDI’08, 2008.

THANK YOU !