RECORD
Faster than Flash: An In-Depth Study of System Challenges for Emerging Ultra-Low Latency SSDs
Operating Systems · Submitted 15 Dec 2019
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim Based on the performance behaviors that this study uncovers, we also discuss several system implications, which are required to take a full advantage of ULL SSD in the future.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Emerging storage systems with new flash exhibit ultra-low latency (ULL) that can address performance disparities between DRAM and conventional solid state drives (SSDs) in the memory hierarchy. Considering the advanced low-latency characteristics, different types of I/O completion methods (polling/hybrid) and storage stack architecture (SPDK) are proposed. While these new techniques are expected to take costly software interventions off the critical path in ULL-applied systems, unfortunately no study exists to quantitatively analyze system-level characteristics and challenges of combining such newly-introduced techniques with real ULL SSDs. In this work, we comprehensively perform empirical evaluations with 800GB ULL SSD prototypes and characterize ULL behaviors by considering a wide range of I/O path parameters, such as different queues and access patterns. We then analyze the efficiencies and challenges of the polled-mode and hybrid polling I/O completion methods (added into Linux kernels 4.4 and 4.10, respectively) and compare them with the efficiencies of a conventional interrupt-based I/O path. In addition, we revisit the common expectations of SPDK by examining all the system resources and parameters. Finally, we demonstrate the challenges of ULL SSDs in a real SPDK-enabled server-client system. Based on the performance behaviors that this study uncovers, we also discuss several system implications, which are required to take a full advantage of ULL SSD in the future.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Emerging storage systems with new flash exhibit ultra-low latency (ULL) that can address performance disparities between DRAM and conventional solid state drives (SSDs) in the memory hierarchy. | background 1.00 | 0.07 | 0.04 | asserted 0.67 |
| s1 | Considering the advanced low-latency characteristics, different types of I/O completion methods (polling/hybrid) and storage stack architecture (SPDK) are proposed. | background 0.78 | 0.25 | 0.03 | asserted 0.91 |
| s2 | While these new techniques are expected to take costly software interventions off the critical path in ULL-applied systems, unfortunately no study exists to quantitatively analyze system-level characteristics and challenges of combining such newly-introduced techniques with real ULL SSDs. | gap 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.05 | asserted 0.81 |
| s3 | In this work, we comprehensively perform empirical evaluations with 800GB ULL SSD prototypes and characterize ULL behaviors by considering a wide range of I/O path parameters, such as different queues and access patterns. | method 0.55 | 0.97 | 0.06 | asserted 1.00 |
| s4 | We then analyze the efficiencies and challenges of the polled-mode and hybrid polling I/O completion methods (added into Linux kernels 4.4 and 4.10, respectively) and compare them with the efficiencies of a conventional interrupt-based I/O path. | method 0.57 | 0.92 | 0.07 | asserted 0.97 |
| s5 | In addition, we revisit the common expectations of SPDK by examining all the system resources and parameters. | contribution 0.55 | 0.85 | 0.03 | asserted 0.80 |
| s6 | Finally, we demonstrate the challenges of ULL SSDs in a real SPDK-enabled server-client system. | contribution 0.75 | 0.95 | 0.09 | asserted 1.00 |
| s7 | Based on the performance behaviors that this study uncovers, we also discuss several system implications, which are required to take a full advantage of ULL SSD in the future. | interpretation 0.74 | 0.76 | 0.36 | asserted 0.70 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Emerging storage systems with new flash exhibit ultra-low latency (ULL) that can address performance disparities between DRAM and conventional solid state drives (SSDs) in the memory hierarchy. Considering the advanced low-latency characteristics, different types of I/O completion methods (polling/hybrid) and storage stack architecture (SPDK) are proposed. While these new techniques are expected to take costly software interventions off the critical path in ULL-applied systems, unfortunately no study exists to quantitatively analyze system-level characteristics and challenges of combining such newly-introduced techniques with real ULL SSDs. In this work, we comprehensively perform empirical evaluations with 800GB ULL SSD prototypes and characterize ULL behaviors by considering a wide range of I/O path parameters, such as different queues and access patterns. We then analyze the efficiencies and challenges of the polled-mode and hybrid polling I/O completion methods (added into Linux kernels 4.4 and 4.10, respectively) and compare them with the efficiencies of a conventional interrupt-based I/O path. In addition, we revisit the common expectations of SPDK by examining all the system resources and parameters. Finally, we demonstrate the challenges of ULL SSDs in a real SPDK-enabled server-client system. Based on the performance behaviors that this study uncovers, we also discuss several system implications, which are required to take a full advantage of ULL SSD in the future.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.