RayOnStorage

Latest SPECsfs2008 results, over 1 million NFS ops/sec – chart-of-the-month

Posted on February 3, 2012 by Ray

Column chart showing the top 10 NFS througput operations per second for SPECsfs2008

[We are still catching up on our charts for the past quarter but this one brings us up to date through last month]

There’s just something about a million SPECsfs2008(r) NFS throughput operations per second that kind of excites me (weird, I know). Yes it takes over 44-nodes of Avere FXT 3500 with over 6TB of DRAM cache, 140-nodes of EMC Isilon S200 with almost 7TB of DRAM cache and 25TB of SSDs or at least 16-nodes of NetApp FAS6240 in Data ONTAP 8.1 cluster mode with 8TB of FlashCache to get to that level.

Nevertheless, a million NFS throughput operations is something worth celebrating. It’s not often one achieves a 2X improvement in performance over a previous record. Something significant has changed here.

The age of scale-out

We have reached a point where scaling systems out can provide linear performance improvements, at least up to a point. For example, the EMC Isilon and NetApp FAS6240 had a close to linear speed up in performance as they added nodes indicating (to me at least) there may be more there if they just throw more storage nodes at the problem. Although maybe they saw some drop off and didn’t wish to show the world or potentially the costs became prohibitive and they had to stop someplace. On the other hand, Avere only benchmarked their 44-node system with their current hardware (FXT 3500), they must have figured winning the crown was enough.

However, I would like to point out that throwing just any hardware at these systems doesn’t necessary increase performance. Previously (see my CIFS vs NFS corrected post), we had shown the linear regression for NFS throughput against spindle count and although the regression coefficient was good (~R**2 of 0.82), it wasn’t perfect. And of course we eliminated any SSDs from that prior analysis. (Probably should consider eliminating any system with more than a TB of DRAM as well – but this was before the 44-node Avere result was out).

Speaking of disk drives, the FAS6240 system nodes had 72-450GB 15Krpm disks, the Isilon nodes had 24-300GB 10Krpm disks and each Avere node had 15-600GB 7.2Krpm SAS disks. However the Avere system also had a 4-Solaris ZFS file storage systems behind it each of which had another 22-3TB (7.2Krpm, I think) disks. Given all that, the 16-node NetApp system, 140-node Isilon and the 44-node Avere systems had a total of 1152, 3360 and 748 disk drives respectively. Of course, this doesn’t count the system disks for the Isilon and Avere systems nor any of the SSDs or FlashCache in the various configurations.

I would say with this round of SPECsfs2008 benchmarks scale-out NAS systems have come out. It’s too bad that both NetApp and Avere didn’t release comparable CIFS benchmark results which would have helped in my perennial discussion on CIFS vs. NFS.

But there’s always next time.

~~~~

The full SPECsfs2008 performance report went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last December. A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our site sometime later this month (if all goes well). However, you can see our full SPECsfs2008 performance analysis now and subscribe to our free monthly newsletter to receive future reports directly by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of file and NAS storage performance covering top 30 SPECsfs2008 results and NAS storage system features and functionality, please consider purchasing our NAS Buying Guide available from SCI’s website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of SPECsfs2008 results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

Comments?

A day and a half with HP Storage

Posted on January 30, 2012 by Ray

A photo of bloggers and HP personnel waiting to go on the lab tour

Bloggers and HP people waiting to tour lab

[long post 945 wds] HP held their (annual?) HP Tech Days in Fort Collins, Colorado this last week. We had presentations from a number of HP product managers and got to meet a number of new and old bloggers there.

In attendance from the blogosphere were: Alastair Cooke (@DemitasseNZ), Brian Knudtson (@bknudtson), Howard Marks (@DeepStorageNet), John Obeto (@JohnObeto), Jeff Powers (@Geekazine), Rich Schandler (@recklessop), Derek Schauland (@webjunkie), Justin Vashisht (@3cVGuy), and Matt Vogt (@MattVogt).

Craig Nunes VP of Marketing, HP Storage got up and led off the day’s discussion talking about recent results. HP disk storage is up 11% for the quarter, 3par is growing by triple digit growth (~~QoQ~~ maybe YoY?) and channel sales are growing by 10%. HP storage is gaining market share, grew 3% for the quarter. Also, HP is #2 is shipped backup appliances (1H11). The current focus for HP storage is in three areas:

Invest in established platforms, MSA and EVA (with a 100K customers)
Invest in converged storage aimed at new data centers, 3PAR, Lefthand, IBRIX and StoreOnce.
Invest in converged systems knocking down barriers between servers, storage and networking with Virtual Systems.

Craig spent most of his time talking about converged storage. HP’s converged storage includes:

built in autonomic storage automating operations with one pain of glass and an orchestration layer on top to oversee everything.
scale out storage providing simpler ways to grow storage.
built on standardized platforms using off the shelf server platform technology

Craig ended up discussing HP’s Virtual System, their response to VCE’s Vblock, NetApp’s FlexPod and Dell’s vStart Bundle. HP’s Virtual System was announced earlier last year and has been doing well in the market.

Brad Katz, Product Manager got up next and talked about Lefthand storage solutions. Lefthand’s portfolio now ranges from the Virtual Storage Appliance (VSA) all the way up to a P4800 SAN storage blade with P4300 and P4500 rackmountable storage systems between those two. Lefthand systems provide a clustered, scale-out IP/SAN and NAS storage. Cluster data is striped across all disks in all storage nodes.

The VSA runs as a virtual machine and utilizes any ESX (direct or SAN attached) storage. The P4800 operates as a storage blade in an HP blade server and uses storage in the blade system. The two rackmount systems P4300 and P4500 connect to SAS attached, external disk shelves.

HP's Steve Johnson, at the front of the room discussing slide on StoreOnce

Steve Johnson on StoreOnce

Steve Johnson and Mat Jacoby talked next about the StoreOnce deduplicating backup appliance product line. StoreOnce is an HP R&D Labs home grown, deduplication technology which provides balanced ingest-restore rates and memory efficient deduplication. The current product line spans D2D25xx, D2D41xx, D2D43xx and the recently announced, B6200 backup storage blade.

StoreOnce use a variable block, 4K chunksize and a sparse index which saves on server memory size which both lead to great deduplication rates. Most deduplication functionality is memory intensive making it hard to scale without increasing memory or using different dedupe engines across a product line. StoreOnce’s sparse indexing fixed that issue and as such, can use the same deduplication engine across their entire product line.

HP's JR (Jim Richardson) at the front of the room discussing 3PAR's advantages

JR talking about 3PAR advantages

Jim Richardson or JR, a 3PAR SE from the start, got up and discussed 3PAR. Early on, 3PAR brought to the market three characteristics that differentiated it from other enterprise storage products:

Multi-tennancy – today’s cloud service providers and just about anyone running enterprise storage needs to support mixed workloads on shared storage. 3PAR’s ASIC allows data to be placed on any storage node and be serviced at direct access speeds to better support these multi-application environments.
Thin provisioning – although certainly not the first to support thin provisioning (Iceberg was the first), 3PAR did much to popularize it. Once again the ASIC provides automated support for thin provisioning.
Autonomic functionality – optimization of storage performance across nodes and tiers of storage was also helped by their ASIC’s ability to transfer data without involving processor interaction. Also 3PAR, tried to take the drudgery out of administration by automatically wide striping and making provisioning easier.

Jim Hankins and Chris Duffy came up next and talked about the X9000 IBRIX storage system. Ibrix has intrinsic scale out NAS support and provides automatic failover across dual processing nodes called couplets. The B6200 backup system (see above) is based on Ibrix technology. Ibrix supports a 15PB single name space that is segmented across cluster couplets. Ibrix also comes in a gateway configuration using shared SAN storage behind it.

A picture of a X5000 without skins, and a couple of CRUs taken out

HP X5000 NAS system

Robert Thompson got up and talked about the X5000 Windows Server WSS based NAS product. It is the industry’s first two node file system with active/active clustering in a box. As the product runs Windows Server, one can run Anti-Virus or other server applications directly on the storage and is customer maintainable. Robert pulled out every replaceable unit in the system. Apparently the E5000, HP Storage’s Exchange Appliance is also based on the same hardware. The two servers in the storage system are clustered together using MSCS.

A photo of an intelligent data center floor tile with remotely controlled mechanical louvres to control air flow.

HPer showing off intelligent floor tiles

In the afternoon we went on a lab tour and got to see some of HP’s storage and data center cooling technology on display.

On the second day, Mike Koponen got up and discussed HP’s Virtual System (or Vblock competitor) and Aboubacar Diare gave some of his opinions on VMware VAAI & VASA integration from his testing perspective. Finally, Calvin Zito wrapped up the two day event and everyone (except me and a few others) went on a brewery tour.

~~~~

All in all, we had a good time with HP. Too bad, I didn’t get to go on the New Belgium Brewery tour, perhaps next time.

Comments?

Posted in Block Storage, Data reduction, Disk storage, File Storage, Storage architecture, Storage Backup, System effectiveness | Tagged autonomic storage, converged storage, HP 3PAR, HP B6200, HP data center cooling technology, HP Ibrix, HP StoreOnce, HP Tech Days, HP X5000, HP X9000, Multi-tenancy | 1 Comment

Intel acquires InfiniBand fabric technology from Qlogic

Posted on January 24, 2012 by Ray

Isilon Packaging by ChrisDag (cc) (from Flickr)”]

[InfiniBand interconnected

Intel announced today that they are going to acquire the InfiniBand (IB) fabric technology business from Qlogic.

From many analyst’s perspective, IB is one of the only technologies out there that can efficiently interconnect a cluster of commodity servers into a supercomputing system.

What’s InfiniBand?

Recall that IB is one of three reigning data center fabric technologies available today which include 10GbE, and 16 Gb/s FC. IB is currently available in DDR, QDR and FDR modes of operation, that is 5Gb/s, 10Gb/s or 14Gb/s, respectively per single lane, according to the IB update (see IB trade association (IBTA) technology update). Systems can aggregate multiple IB lanes in units of 4 or 12 paths (see wikipedia IB article), such that an IB QDRx4 supports 40Gb/s and a IB FDRx4 currently supports 56Gb/s.

The IBTA pitch cited above showed that IB is the most widely used interface for the top supercomputing systems and supports the most power efficient interconnect available (although how that’s calculated is not described).

Where else does IB make sense?

One thing IB has going for it is low latency through the use of RDMA or remote direct memory access. That same report says that an SSD directly connected through a FC takes about ~45 μsec to do a read whereas the same SSD directly connected through IB using RDMA would only take ~26 μsec.

However, RDMA technology is now also coming out on 10GbE through RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE, pronounced “rocky”). But ITBA claims that IB RDMA has a 0.6 μsec latency and the RoCE has a 1.3 μsec. Although at these speed, 0.7 μsec doesn’t seem to be a big thing, it doubles the latency.

Nonetheless, Intel’s purchase is an interesting play. I know that Intel is focusing on supporting an ExaFLOP HPC computing environment by 2018 (see their release). But IB is already a pretty active technology in the HPC community already and doesn’t seem to need their support.

In addition, IB has been gradually making inroads into enterprise data centers via storage products like the Oracle Exadata Storage Server using the 40 Gb/s IB QDRx4 interconnects. There are a number of other storage products out that use IB as well from EMC Isilon, SGI, Voltaire, and others.

Of course where IB can mostly be found today is in computer to computer interconnects and just about every server vendor out today, including Dell, HP, IBM, and Oracle support IB interconnects on at least some of their products.

Whose left standing?

With Qlogic out I guess this leaves Cisco (de-emphasized lately), Flextronix, Mellanox, and Intel as the only companies that supply IB switches. Mellanox, Intel (from Qlogic) and Voltaire supply the HCA (host channel adapter) cards which provide the server interface to the switched IB network.

Probably a logical choice for Intel to go after some of this technology just to keep it moving forward and if they want to be seriously involved in the network business.

IB use in Big Data?

On the other hand, it’s possible that Hadoop and other big data applications could conceivably make use of IB speeds and as these are mainly vast clusters of commodity systems it would be a logical choice.

There is some interesting research on the advantages of IB in HDFS (Hadoop) system environments (see Can high performance interconnects boost Hadoop distributed file system performance) out of Ohio State University. This research essentially says that Hadoop HDFS can perform much better when you combine IB with IPoIB (IP over IB, see OpenFabrics Alliance article) and SSDs. But SSDs alone do not provide as much benefit. (Although my reading of the performance charts seems to indicate it’s not that much better than 10GbE with TOE?).

It’s possible other Big data analytics engines are considering using IB as well. It would seem to be a logical choice if you had even more control over the software stack.

~~~~

Comments?

Posted in Clustered storage, Distributed computing, Ethernet, Infiniband, Information economy, Networking, RDMA, RoCE, Storage performance, Strategic Inflection Points | Tagged 10GBE, BIGData, EMC Isilon, ExaFLOP computing, Flextronics, Hadoop, HDFS, HPC, IB EDR, IB QDR, IBTA, Intel, IPoIB, Melanox, OpenFabrics Alliance, Qlogic, supercomputing clusters, Voltaire | Leave a comment

Latest SPC-1 results – IOPS vs drive counts – chart-of-the-month

Posted on January 19, 2012 by Ray

Scatter plot of SPC-1 IOPS against Spindle count, with linear regression line showing Y=186.18X + 10227 with R**2=0.96064

[As promised, I am trying to get up-to-date on my performance charts from our monthly newsletters. This one brings us current up through November.]

The above chart plots Storage Performance Council SPC-1 IOPS against spindle count. On this chart, we have eliminated any SSD systems, systems with drives smaller than 140 GB and any systems with multiple drive sizes.

Alas, the regression coefficient (R**2) of 0.96 tells us that SPC-1 IOPS performance is mainly driven by drive count. But what’s more interesting here is that as drive counts get higher than say 1000, the variance surrounding the linear regression line widens – implying that system sophistication starts to matter more.

Processing power matters

For instance, if you look at the three systems centered around 2000 drives, they are (from lowest to highest IOPS) 4-node IBM SVC 5.1, 6-node IBM SVC 5.1 and an 8-node HP 3PAR V800 storage system. This tells us that the more processing (nodes) you throw at an IOPS workload given similar spindle counts, the more efficient it can be.

System sophistication can matter too

The other interesting facet on this chart comes from examining the three systems centered around 250K IOPS that span from ~1150 to ~1500 drives.

The 1156 drive system is the latest HDS VSP 8-VSD (virtual storage directors, or processing nodes) running with dynamically (thinly) provisioned volumes – which is the first and only SPC-1 submission using thin provisioning.
The 1280 drive system is a (now HP) 3PAR T800 8-node system.
The 1536 drive system is an IBM SVC 4.3 8-node storage system.

One would think that thin provisioning would degrade storage performance and maybe it did but without a non-dynamically provisioned HDS VSP benchmark to compare against, it’s hard to tell. However, the fact that the HDS-VSP performed as well as the other systems did with much lower drive counts seems to tell us that thin provisioning potentially uses hard drives more efficiently than fat provisioning, the 8-VSD HDS VSP is more effective than an 8-node IBM SVC 4.3 and an 8-node (HP) 3PAR T800 systems, or perhaps some combination of these.

~~~~

The full SPC performance report went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last November. [The one change to this chart from the full report is the date in the chart's title was wrong and is fixed here]. A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our website sometime this month (if all goes well). However, you can get performance information now and subscribe to future newsletters to receive these reports even earlier by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of block or SAN storage performance covering SPC-1&-2 (top 30) and ESRP (top 20) results please consider purchasing our recently updated SAN Storage Buying Guide available on our website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of SPC results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

Comments?

Posted in Block Storage, Disk storage, FC, Storage performance, System effectiveness | Tagged 3PAR, Chart of the month, HDS, HDS VSP, HP, HP 3PAR V800, IBM, IBM SVC, IBM SVC 4.3, IBM SVC 5.1, IOPS, IOPs/Drive, SPC-1, Storage Performance Council | 17 Comments

12 atoms per bit vs 35 bits per electron

Posted on January 17, 2012 by Ray

Shows 6 atom pairs in a row, with coloration of blue for interstitial space and yellow for external facets of the atom

from Technology Review Article

Read a story today in Technology Review on Magnetic Memory Miniaturized to Just 12 Atoms by a team at IBM Research that created a (spin) magnetic “storage device” that used 12 iron atoms to record a single bit (near absolute zero and just for a few hours). The article said it was about 100X denser than the previous magnetic storage record.

Holographic storage beats that

Wikipedia’s (soon to go dark for 24hrs) article on Memory Storage Density mentioned research at Stanford that in 2009 created an electronic quantum holographic device that stored 35 bits/electron using a sheet of copper atoms to record the letters S and U.

The Wikipedia article went on to equate 35bits/electron to ~3 Exabytes[10**18 bytes]/In**2. (Although, how Wikipedia was able to convert from bits/electron to EB/in**2 I don’t know but I’ll accept it as a given)

Now an iron atom has 26 electrons and copper has 29 electrons. If 35 bits/electron is 3 EB/in**2 (or ~30Eb/in**2), then 1 bit per 12 iron atoms (or 12*26=312 electrons) should be 0.0032bits/electron or ~275TB/in**2 (or ~2.8Pb/in**2). Not quite to the scale of the holographic device but interesting nonetheless.

What can that do for my desktop?

Given that today’s recording head/media has demonstrated ~3.3Tb/in**2 (see our Disk drive density multiplying by 6X post), the 12 atoms per bit is a significant advance for (spin) magnetic storage.

With today’s disk industry shipping 1TB/disk platters using ~0.6Tb/in**2 (see our Disk capacity growing out of sight post), these technologies, if implemented in a disk form factor, could store from 4.6PB to 50EB in a 3.5″ form factor storage device.

So there is a limit to (spin) magnetic storage and it’s about 11000X larger than holographic storage. Once again holographic storage proves it can significantly store more data than magnetic storage if only it could be commercialized. (Probably a subject to cover in a future post.)

~~~~

I don’t know about you but 4.6PB drive is probably more than enough storage for my lifetime and then some. But then again those new 4K High Definition videos, may take up a lot more space than my (low definition) DVD collection.

Comments?

Posted in Data density, R&D measures, Storage, Storage density | Tagged electronic quantum holographic storage, Holographic storage, IBM Research, spin magnetics, Stanford University | Leave a comment

ESRP v3 (Exchange 2010) log playback results, 1Kmbox&under – chart-of-the-month

Posted on January 12, 2012 by Ray

(SCIESRP111029-003) (c) 2011 Silverton Consulting, All Rights Reserved

The above chart is from our last Exchange [2010] Solution Review Program (ESRP) performance dispatch released in our October newsletter (sign-up upper right). The 1K mailbox and under category for ESRP represents Exchange storage solutions for SMB data centers.

As one can see from the above the NetApp FAS2040 has done well but an almost matching result came in from the HP P2000 G3 MSA system. What’s not obvious here is that the FAS2040 had 8 disks and the P2000 had 78 so there was quite a difference in the spindle counts. The #3&4 runs from EMC VNXe3100 also posted respectable results (within 1sec of top performer) and only had 5 and 7 disks respectively, so they were much more inline with the FAS2040 run. The median number of drives for this category is 8 drives which probably makes sense for SMB storage solutions.

Why log playback

I have come to prefer a few metrics in the Exchange 2010 arena that seem to me to capture a larger part of the information available from an ESRP report. The Log Playback metric is one of them that seems to me to fit the bill nicely. Specifically:

It doesn’t depend on the Jetstress IO/rate parameter that impacts the database transfers per second rate. The log playback is just the average time it takes to playback a 1MB log file against a database.
It is probably a clear indicator of how well a storage system (configured matching the ESRP) can support DAG log processing.

In addition, I believe Log Playback is a great stand-in for any randomized database transaction processing. Now I know that Exchange is not necessarily a pure relational database but it does have a significant component of indexes, tables, and sequentiality to it.

My problem is that there doesn’t seem to be any other real database performance benchmark out there for storage. I know that TPC has a number of benchmarks tailored to database transaction activity but these seem to be more a measure of the database server than the storage. SPC-2 has some database oriented queries but it’s generally focused on through put and doesn’t really represent randomized database activity and for other reasons it’s not as highly used as SPC-1 or ESRP so there is not as much data to report on.

That leaves ESRP. For whatever reason (probably the popularity of Exchange), almost everyone submits for ESRP. Which makes it ripe for product comparisons.

Also, there are a number of other good metrics in ESRP results that I feel have general applicability outside Exchange as well. I will be reporting on them in future posts.

~~~~

Comments?

Sorry, I haven’t been keeping up with our chart-of-the-month posts, but I promise to do better in the future. I plan to be back in synch with our newsletter dispatches before month end.

The full ESRP performance report for the 1K and under mailbox category went out to our newsletter subscriber’s last October. A copy of the full report will be up on the dispatches page of our website sometime this month (if all goes well). However, you can get performance information now and subscribe to future newsletters to receive these reports even earlier by just sending us an email or using the signup form above right.

For a more extensive discussion of block storage performance in ESRP (top 20) and SPC-1&-2 (top 30) results please consider purchasing our recently updated SAN Storage Buying Guide available on our website.

As always, we welcome any suggestions on how to improve our analysis of ESRP results or any of our other storage system performance discussions.

Posted in Block Storage, Storage performance, System effectiveness | Tagged 1K-and-under mbx, Chart of the month, database performance, EMC VNXe3100, ESRP, Exchange performance, Exchange Solution Reviewed Pro, HP P2000 G3 MSA, Log playback, Microsoft Exchange, NetApp FAS2040 | Leave a comment

Mapping the brain

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Ray

Charles Bell: Anatomy of the Brain, c. 1802 by brain_blogger (cc) (From Flickr)

Read an interesting piece today on MIT News titled Patterns of connections reveal brain functions. The article was mostly about how scientists there had managed to identify brain functionality by mapping the connections it had to other parts of the brain.

They had determined that facial recognition functionality could be recognized just by the connections it had to the rest of the brain. But that’s not what I found interesting.

Seeing connections in living brains

By using MRIs and diffusion-weighted imaging (applying MRI magnetic fields in many different directions and detecting water flow) they can now identify connections between locations within a living brain. I suppose this has been going on for quite a while now but this is the first I have heard about it.

The article didn’t mention the granularity of the connections they were able to detect, but presumably this would get better over time as MRI’s became more detailed. Could they concievably identify a single synapse or neuron to neuron connection? Could they identify the synapse’s connection strength or almost as important its positive or negative gain?

Technology to live forever

Ray Kurzweil predicted that in the near future, science would be able to download a living brain into a computer and by doing so an “individual” could live forever in “virtual life”. One of the first steps in this process is the ability to read out neural connections. Of course we would need more than just connections alone, but mapping is a first step.

Together with mapping brains and neuromorphic computing advances coming from IBM and MIT labs, we could conceivably do something like what Anders Sandgren and Nick Bostrom described in their Whole Brain Emulation paper. But even with a detailed, highly accurate map of neurons and synapses, the cognitive computing elements available today are not yet ready to emulate a whole brain – thank God.

Other uses

I am little frightened to think of the implications of such brain mapping capabilities. Not to mention the ability to read connections in living brains could potentially be used to read connections in deceased (presumably preserved) brains just as well.

Would such a device be able to emulate a person’s brain enough to be able to extract secrets – gives brain washing a whole new meaning. Probably, at a minimum, such technology could provide an infinitely better lie detector.

~~~~

Another step on the road to the singularity.

Comments?

Posted in Cognitive computing | Tagged Brain scanning, Cognitive computing, neuromorphic computing, Singularity | Leave a comment

RayOnStorage Blog

Latest SPECsfs2008 results, over 1 million NFS ops/sec – chart-of-the-month

The age of scale-out

A day and a half with HP Storage

Intel acquires InfiniBand fabric technology from Qlogic

What’s InfiniBand?

Where else does IB make sense?

Whose left standing?

IB use in Big Data?

Latest SPC-1 results – IOPS vs drive counts – chart-of-the-month

Processing power matters

System sophistication can matter too

12 atoms per bit vs 35 bits per electron

Holographic storage beats that

What can that do for my desktop?

ESRP v3 (Exchange 2010) log playback results, 1Kmbox&under – chart-of-the-month

Why log playback

Mapping the brain

Seeing connections in living brains

Technology to live forever

Other uses

Top 10 blog posts for 2011

FOLLOW US

NEWSLETTER

SCI NEWS and Events

Most popular posts - last 90 days

Recent Posts

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Archives

The age of scale-out

What’s InfiniBand?

Where else does IB make sense?

Whose left standing?

IB use in Big Data?

Processing power matters

System sophistication can matter too

Holographic storage beats that

What can that do for my desktop?

Why log playback

Seeing connections in living brains

Technology to live forever

Other uses

FOLLOW US

NEWSLETTER

SCI NEWS and Events

Most popular posts - last 90 days

Recent Posts

Tag Cloud

What I'm Doing...

Categories

Archives