←back to thread

SSDs have become fast, except in the cloud

(databasearchitects.blogspot.com)
589 points greghn | 1 comments | 20 Feb 24 16:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pclmulqdq ◴[20 Feb 24 17:22 UTC] No.39443994[source]▶
This was a huge technical problem I worked on at Google, and is sort of fundamental to a cloud. I believe this is actually a big deal that drives peoples' technology directions.

SSDs in the cloud are attached over a network, and fundamentally have to be. The problem is that this network is so large and slow that it can't give you anywhere near the performance of a local SSD. This wasn't a problem for hard drives, which was the backing technology when a lot of these network attached storage systems were invented, because they are fundamentally slow compared to networks, but it is a problem for SSD.

replies(30): >>39444009 #>>39444024 #>>39444028 #>>39444046 #>>39444062 #>>39444085 #>>39444096 #>>39444099 #>>39444120 #>>39444138 #>>39444328 #>>39444374 #>>39444396 #>>39444429 #>>39444655 #>>39444952 #>>39445035 #>>39445917 #>>39446161 #>>39446248 #>>39447169 #>>39447467 #>>39449080 #>>39449287 #>>39449377 #>>39449994 #>>39450169 #>>39450172 #>>39451330 #>>39466088 #
jsnell ◴[20 Feb 24 17:31 UTC] No.39444096[source]▶
According to the submitted article, the numbers are from AWS instance types where the SSD is "physically attached" to the host, not about SSD-backed NAS solutions.

Also, the article isn't just about SSDs being no faster than a network. It's about SSDs being two orders of magnitude slower than datacenter networks.

replies(3): >>39444161 #>>39444353 #>>39448728 #
pclmulqdq ◴[20 Feb 24 17:35 UTC] No.39444161[source]▶
It's because the "local" SSDs are not actually physically attached and there's a network protocol in the way.
replies(14): >>39444222 #>>39444248 #>>39444253 #>>39444261 #>>39444341 #>>39444352 #>>39444373 #>>39445175 #>>39446024 #>>39446163 #>>39446271 #>>39446742 #>>39446840 #>>39446893 #
jsnell ◴[20 Feb 24 17:51 UTC] No.39444373[source]▶
I think you're wrong about that. AWS calls this class of storage "instance storage" [0], and defines it as:

> Many Amazon EC2 instances can also include storage from devices that are located inside the host computer, referred to as instance storage.

There might be some wiggle room in "physically attached", but there's none in "storage devices located inside the host computer". It's not some kind of AWS-only thing either. GCP has "local SSD disks"[1], which I'm going to claim are likewise local, not over the network block storage. (Though the language isn't as explicit as for AWS.)

[0] https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/

[1] https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/disks#localssds

replies(5): >>39444464 #>>39445545 #>>39447509 #>>39449306 #>>39450882 #
pclmulqdq ◴[20 Feb 24 19:14 UTC] No.39445545[source]▶
That's the abstraction they want you to work with, yes. That doesn't mean it's what is actually happening - at least not in the same way that you're thinking.

As a hint for you, I said "a network", not "the network." You can also look at public presentations about how Nitro works.

replies(4): >>39445944 #>>39446809 #>>39447308 #>>39447443 #
jasonwatkinspdx ◴[20 Feb 24 21:50 UTC] No.39447443[source]▶
Both the documentation and Amazon employees are in here telling you that you're wrong. Can you resolve that contradiction or do you just want to act coy like you know some secret? The latter behavior is not productive.
replies(1): >>39450406 #
1. stingraycharles ◴[21 Feb 24 05:16 UTC] No.39450406[source]▶
The parent thinks that AWS' i3 NVMe local instance storage is using a PCIe switch, which is not the case. EBS (and the AWS Nitro card) use a PCIe switch, and as such all EBS storage is exposed as e.g. /dev/nvmeXnY . But that's not the same as the i3 instances are offering, so the parent is confused.