Storage

10:08 AM
Howard Marks
Howard Marks
Commentary
50%
50%
Repost This

SSDs And The Write Endurance Boogeyman

How I learned to stop worrying and love the flash.

A drawback of flash-based SSDs is their limited write endurance. In my previous blog I looked at how, at first glance, the limited write endurance of flash-based SSDs might cause problems for RAID-based data protection systems. The idea is that multiple SSDs with the same write endurance rating could, theoretically, fail at the same time and cause data loss. I don't think it's a significant concern. I'll take a closer look at flash write endurance and how it causes SSD wear to show you why.

A flash cell is controlled by a floating gate that is surrounded by two layers of silicon oxide dielectric, or insulating layers. As high voltage is applied to a flash page to erase the page, the charge in the cell tunnels through the dielectric layer, which causes some damage.

Over time, the dielectric layer will either refuse to allow the tunnel, and the bit will stick as a 0 or a lattice disruption from the high voltage will short the oxide and the cell will fail to program and be stuck in the 1 state.

The rate at which cell failures occur varies based on the flash technology. SLC flash is typically rated at 100,000 write-erase cycles, MLC at 10,000 and eMLC at 30,000.

[SSDs have a variety of storage uses, including supporting VDI performance. Find out how in "Solving VDI Problems With SSDs and Data Deduplication."]

These vendor ratings fall somewhere in between minimum guarantees and stated MTBF (mean time between failures) actually representing something like a 1st or 5th percentile failure number. That is, at the rated number of write-erase cycles, some small percentage of the cells on the chip will have failed, and the rate at which failures will occur through further write-erase cycles is great enough that the vendor suggests you not count on the flash any further.

Intel, Micron and Toshiba are like Nissan or Ford when it comes to SSDs. When they say the timing belt in your car will last 60,000 miles, or the flash will last through 30,000 write-erase cycles, they're not saying it will break at 61,000. They are saying it could break, or fail to hold new data, at that point. Most will last longer, but I wouldn't want to be the guy that finds out exactly how much longer during rush hour on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

That said, flash devices don't hit their magic endurance numbers and kick the bucket. As flash ages, the error rate for writing data to each page increases as the cells in that page fail. Flash controllers have ECC and DSP technologies built in to handle individual cell failures; as long as the number of failed cells in a page is low, the controller can just correct the errors and use the page.

Eventually, the error rate rises to the point that the flash controller is no longer confident it's getting the right data, so the controller marks that page as bad.

Because a typical enterprise SSD will be overprovisioned, allowing user access to 200GB of its 256GB or more of flash, a moderate number of failed pages just reduces the amount of overprovisioned flash the controller can use for housekeeping. This might affect performance but won't cause the SSD as a whole to fail. Only when the pool of overprovisioned flash is used up replacing bad pages does the SSD fail, and even then the data it holds is still readable.

While today's semiconductor manufacturing processes are incredibly precise, when you're dealing with cell geometries of 20nm or less it's just not possible that every block, page and cell of an entire flash chip, let alone a batch of thousands, is exactly the same.

When the boffins at Toshiba or Micron say the oxide layer in their flash is 170 atoms thick, that's going to be an average. Some will be 150 and others 200, and as the oxide layers age some cells are going to fail earlier than others.

Actually testing flash devices to see just how variable the failures are would be destructive, take a long time and ultimately require a large number of chips to be destroyed, and I haven't seen any studies to show how variable the rate is. My discussions with flash, SSD and array vendors leads me to believe that it's variable enough that we don't have to worry about a second SSD wearing out while the first is rebuilding.

Consider also that SSDs rebuild five to 10 times faster than HDDs, and that unlike HDDs, new generations of SDDs get faster as well as bigger. When I put all these factors together, I think the near-simultaneous SDD wearout problem is a Bogeyman: big, really scary but ultimately not very real.

Does flash write endurance have you worried? Is it enough to keep you from adopting flash? I'd like to get your input. Use the comments section to share your feedback.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
StorageOlogist
50%
50%
StorageOlogist,
User Rank: Apprentice
9/19/2013 | 5:46:51 PM
re: SSDs And The Write Endurance Boogeyman
Good system design mitigates this issue and also makes sure that the data on the disks is protected just like it needs to be on any media. Users need not feel uncomfortable if their system has been designed for flash and uses good techniques to ensure that data loss is avoided. I have a blog on some of the ways you can mitigate the write endurance issues and also cost effectively protect the data. http://blog.starboardstorage.c...
Howard Marks
50%
50%
Howard Marks,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2013 | 9:25:40 PM
re: SSDs And The Write Endurance Boogeyman
It's true that as flash memory cells shrink the write endurance of the devices decreases as well. I may well have been oversimplifying a bit by discussing the available flash products as just 3 pools.

Today SLC is still made in a 3xnm (30-39nm) geometry with 100K cycle endurance though the SLC era is slowly coming to an end.

MLC flash used in the kind of enterprise oriented devices I'm writing about is shifting from 3x and 29nm to 22 and 19nm geometries with endurance dropping from 10K to around 5K.

eMLC is also shrinking but the vendors are tweeking the program cycle to keep it over 20K cycles.

The flash in an iPhone, thumbdrive or SDcard is a different kettle of fish and should not be compared to the much higher grade stuff used in enterprise SSDs. Remember NetworkComputing isn't about consumer tech. We're by IT for IT.

But the truth is you shouldn't be concerned about the raw chips in your SSD but the device as a whole. Greater over-provisioning, and a smarter controller can reduce the number of times each cell gets written to by a factor of three or more.

Instead look at the SSD endurance guarantee from the vendor. Intel's DC S3700 for example is rated at 10 full drive writes a day for 5 years. That's 18,250 times the capacity of the drive. How many cycles is that at the cell level? I don't really know and don't really care. I just know that I can check the SMART counter at any time and see how much life I have left on my SSDs.
jh1001
50%
50%
jh1001,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/9/2013 | 1:44:32 PM
re: SSDs And The Write Endurance Boogeyman
"SLC flash is typically rated at 100,000 write-erase cycles, MLC at 10,000 and eMLC at 30,000."

I believe these are outdated figures. From what I've found after much reading is that the numbers have decreased greatly as flash memory is constructed as smaller scales. Almost all recent consumer-level flash devices, including what's built into the iPhone, and including SSDs from Samsung and Intel, appear to be in the 3,000 writes per cell range. That's a far cry from 10,000 or 1000,000 writes.

If you can definitively find otherwise, then I'd love to hear about it.
kmarko
50%
50%
kmarko,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/3/2013 | 8:17:04 PM
re: SSDs And The Write Endurance Boogeyman
The write endurance issue (I won't call it a problem since it's well understood and solvable) is no different than mechanical disk bearings or heads failing due to physical wear out. The fragility of tunnel oxide has been characterized and understood for decades, since development of the floating gate memory cell in the 70's. As Howard mentions, memory chip designs work around this with redundant cells. Solid state storage systems do the same; add multiple levels of redundancy -- chip, module, SSD, etc -- to the system architecture such that component failures at all levels can be tolerated without data loss. In sum, flash memory write endurance shouldn't keep you awake at night.
More Blogs from Commentary
Infrastructure Challenge: Build Your Community
Network Computing provides the platform; help us make it your community.
Edge Devices Are The Brains Of The Network
In any type of network, the edge is where all the action takes place. Think of the edge as the brains of the network, while the core is just the dumb muscle.
Fight Software Piracy With SaaS
SaaS makes application deployment easy and effective. It could eliminate software piracy once and for all.
SDN: Waiting For The Trickle-Down Effect
Like server virtualization and 10 Gigabit Ethernet, SDN will eventually become a technology that small and midsized enterprises can use. But it's going to require some new packaging.
IT Certification Exam Success In 4 Steps
There are no shortcuts to obtaining passing scores, but focusing on key fundamentals of proper study and preparation will help you master the art of certification.
Hot Topics
1
Scale-Out Storage Has Limits
George Crump, President, Storage Switzerland,  4/21/2014
White Papers
Register for Network Computing Newsletters
Cartoon
Current Issue
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed