Lenovo’s plan for ‘double disk’ notebooks

David Flynn23 May 2007, 11:23 AM

How do you bridge the storage gap between flash disks and hard drives? Lenovo tips a dual-drive system which puts the OS and apps on a flash drive, but uses spinning platters for your data.


No-one seriously doubts that solid state flash drives will one day displace hard disks as the storage medium of choice, especially for notebooks. Memory densities and thus drive capacities are steadily marching upwards while the crucial cost-per-megabyte slowly falls.

At some stage, perhaps before this decade is out, we'll likely see flash drives offered as standard kit on a mainstream notebook.

But before then, flash memory and the conventional hard disk will live side by side -- quite literally, if Lenovo's concept for a 'dual drive' notebook makes it off the drawing board.

Matthew Kohut, the company's worldwide competitive analyst, outlined the concept in a briefing with apcmag.com.

"Probably in the next few years we'll see a dual-drive strategy where your operating system and applications are on solid state media but things like your documents and music and movies are on spinning media. There's no product to speak of yet but I think it's the next thing we'll see, and it makes the most sense because you've got notebook hard drives announced at 250GB but flash memory at only 64GB today, so there's a big gap there."

Kohut also suggested that bullish predictions for solid state media are a little off the mark of what the technology can currently deliver.

"People are expecting solid state memory is going to blow away spinning media. But flash memory today has a limited number of read-write cycles, and the fastest and largest available solid state drives can't get as many read-write cycles as you need for long-term use. You have to go to 'N-1' technology, which are the slower and smaller-capacity solid state drives. It's going to take extra time to get the fastest flash memory up to the number of read-write cycles. With time that will happen, and capacities will keep increasing".

In the meantime, Kohut says the best role for flash is as a cache between the hard drive and the PC's main memory. Most specifically, this is using Intel's Turbo Memory (formerly codenamed Robson) which parks flash memory on the motherboard, rather than hybrid hard disks where the memory is built into the drive itself.

The sweet spot: Lenovo says 1GB of Turbo Memory in your notebook can deliver "up to a 45% performance increase"The sweet spot: Lenovo says 1GB of Turbo Memory in your notebook can deliver "up to a 45% performance increase"

"If you start with a baseline system of a 5400rpm hard drive, then you make this a hybrid hard drive with 256MB, we've found on our benchmarks that you get around 3% or 4 % performance increase over the baseline" explains Kohut.

"If you add 512MB of Turbo Memory instead of using a hybrid hard drive the gain is maybe 5-6%, but 1GB is where the magic happens. In some cases we're seeing up to a 45% performance increase over a system without Turbo Memory. You also get an additional few minutes of battery life -- it won't be dramatic but every few minutes count."

"We're not saying that we'll never use hybrid hard disks" says Kohut. "The technology is great and it makes a lot of sense, but right now 256MB of hybrid hard disk is the biggest you can get, while with Turbo Memory today the biggest you can get is 1GB, and that's where the sweet spot is. Until you get to that 1GB level you really don't see a big performance boost."


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Jarrod Spiga:

A number of manufacturers already sell notebooks with dual hard disk capabilities. While most of these are "enthusiast" notebooks, HP's dv9200 series notebooks are one such model that is an example of dual drives in the mainstream. HP ship it with two 2.5" Hard Drives (I believe that you can RAID-0 them for better performance), but you could easily replace one of the HDD's for a SSD.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

A grad student in Computer Science at U of Illinois:

The conclusion for this article about the performance of different types of flash technologies intergated into mobile systems is plainly wrong! The current state of flash technology, especially the more cost effective NAND flash typically has much lower sequential read and write rates (contiguous files) than magnetic hard drives; often by a factor of 5X to 10X.

The main benefit of flash drives in terms of performance rests in access latency. The random access latency is much lower for the average flash device, which unlike magnetic drives, avoids seek time (taken by the actuator of the rotational drive), as well as the rotational delay (the average time it takes for the rotational media to reach the seek head after the seek head has found the relevant track, usually about 1/2 of time of a single rotation). This typically can save tens to hundreds of milliseconds, which is an eternity for modern processors and memory.

Most modern operating systems have a very small kernel size, compared to the capacity of even a small hard disk; much smaller than 128MB, which is the minimum size of NV (flash) cache on a hybrid drive. These smaller system files enjoy the most benefits from the lowered latency in access. Some small application files may also be stored in the NV cache to derive some benefits. But for large data files, this saved latency offers vanishingly small amount of benefits. For ReadyDrive (not ReadyBoos, which is a completely different ballgame centered around disk caching), 256MB of NV cache would be more than sufficient for the typical user. There is of course, a small amount of extra benefits associated with having multiple read sources (HDD and flash device) for every size and type of file.

As we see, the use of > 256 MB of flash used for ReadyDrive offers little to no benefit. Further more, the author fails to realize that he/she is comparing apples and oranges: Intel's TurboMemory actually between ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive in hardware. For example, a 1GB TurnboMemory module (the typical size), 512MB is dedicated to ReadyBoost, while the other 512MB is dedicated for ReadyDrive. While the entire NV capacity of a hybrid drive would be for ReadyDrive, with USB, SD, PCMCIA, or Express Card devices providing capacity of ReadyBoost.

Given this, using TurboMemory is actually a large disadvantage for ReadyDrive (the other Vista flash cache tech), where MS recommends flash of upto twice the amount of system memory for this purpose. With most systems today sold at 1GB or large, one can't imagine 512MB on TurboMemory to be nearly sufficient for any type of benefit. The worst of all, since Vista supports only a single device for ReadyBoost, once TurboMemory is installed, no additional flash memory can be added to supplement.

This article clearly has a number of strong misconceptions, and misguided attempts at understanding the technology. It offers more misinformation than facts. The author either didn't really do the homework necessary for an informative article, or relied heavily on marketing oriented information. This clearly needs to be rewritten and revised in nearly every aspect and most details.

29 February 2008, 8:30 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

a grad student in C.S. at U of Illinois:

Sorry, the beginning of the 5th paragraph should read:

Given this, using TurboMemory is actually a large disadvantage for ReadyBoost (the other Vista flash cache tech), where MS recommends flash of upto twice the amount of system memory for this purpose.

Where it should be "ReadyBoost", but written as "ReadyDrive" by mistake. It should make more sense now.

29 February 2008, 8:42 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Stevo:

"The worst of all, since Vista supports only a single device for ReadyBoost, once TurboMemory is installed, no additional flash memory can be added to supplement."

I've been trying to find information regarding using both technologies at the same time. This is the first I've heard any mention of it. What is your source of information?

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags