IDEMA – JEDEC

November 3, 2008Debbie Lee, Senior Director

IDEMA IntroductionTrade Association for the Data Storage Industry founded in 1986• $130 Billion Data Storage Industry (including HDD, NAND, NOR, DRAM, CPU/MPU,

ODD) and its supply chainOne Association, Three Regions• Offices in US (International Headquarters), Japan, and Singapore / Asia Pacific• Global Board of Directors• Regional Advisory CouncilsServes Industry• International Trade Shows

• DISKCON USA, DISKCON Asia Pacific, and DISKCON Japan• Technical and Educational Conferences and Symposia Worldwide• Global Industry Standards Program• Networking Events in all Regions• Educational ClassesIDEMA Membership• 350 Corporate members worldwide

• All employees of member companies are IDEMA members (~300,000 people)• Individual Members (Consultants and individuals not affiliated with a company)• University Members (Students attending a member university receives member

benefits)

IDEMA StandardsIDEMA Standards Program (US & Japan) – Focus is for both the development of

Standards and Technology discussions / forum • Set industry standards and benchmarks • Provide collaborative guidance on key technology points• IDEMA Standards Committees with approved Standards

• Hard Disk Drives (HDD)• Consumer Electronics Products• HDD Heads and Suspensions• HDD Media and Substrates• Testing of components and finished storage devices• ESD and Microcontamination• Product Reliability• Semiconductor

US: Long Data Block• – New Standard in ballot process for 4096 block sizeUS: Reliability Committee• Chairman: Jon Elerath, Manager, Reliability Engineering, NetApp

STANDARDS&TECHNOLOGYSTANDARDS&TECHNOLOGYCOMMITTEECOMMITTEE

N.Kodama, Hitachi GSTCo. K.Fukuda, TDK

ESD ESD CONTROLCONTROL

T.Ohtsu, Hitachi GSTCo. Y.Soda, SONYCo. T.Nakajima, FUJITSU

CONTAMINATIONCONTAMINATIONCONTROLCONTROL

T.Yamamoto, TOSHIBACo. K.Ichijo, RIONCo. T.Ohtaki, Hitachi GST

HEAD&DISKHEAD&DISK

K.Kobayashi, FUJITSUCo. K.Tagami, TDKCo. H.Mutoh, FUJITSUCo.H.Ono,IMES

Equipment WG; Lead byHiguchi, Hitachi HT

RW testing WG; Lead byH.Ono, IMES

1. ESD conventional reports should be searched /browsed on Homepage.

2. Would like to make IDEMA standards.

CONSUMER HDDCONSUMER HDD

R.Shimizu, PanasonicCo. Y.Nagase, Victor JVCCo. K.Yamamoto, TOSHIBA

As of 9/18/2008

Automotive HDD &Automotive HDD &Removable HDDRemovable HDD

Y. Nishimura, Hitachi GSTCo. T. Kasebayashi, TOSHIBACo. T. Emori, FujitsuCo. H. Kojima, Tomen Elec.

1. Some themes based on consumer HDD user requirements was selected and the active discussion is in practice with HDD supplier members.

2. Would like to make IDEMA standards.

2008 IDEMA JAPAN STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION

1. Equipment WG and RW testingWG are going.

2. Many topics are discussed.3. Mechanical testing WG should be

set up.4. Would like to make IDEMA

standards

1. Discussion is going on with the chair/co-chair persons from the view point of complementary theme of SRC/JEITA.

2. Would like to make IDEMA standards.

1. Many topics are discussed.

2. Old IDEMA standards are discussed to revise up.

2008 Activities & 2009 Tentative PlanDivision 2008 Activities 2009 Tentative Plan <Fix in Dec.>

Consumer HDD 1. Made IDEMA standard draft of SCT command2. Completed whitepaper on command completion time measurement tool3. Started discussion on power consumption measurement mode

2. To make a method of measuring SATA transmission line

4. Started workshops of SATAHead & Disk 1. Revised edition of "Dictionary of Technical Term for 1. The followings will be discussed;

Storage" - Standardizing evaluation items for perpendicular2. Revising the technical road map for HDD recording3. Start-up Equipment WG for manufacturing - Future of magnetic recording4. Start-up Test Method WG for DTM and BPM *Head - TMR, CPP, HAMR, MAMR

*Media - Perpendicular, DTM, BPM, HAMR *HDI, etc. - Suspension, Head IC, Channel, etc.

ESD Control 1. Proposed application standards to Global IDEMA 1. To hold workshops2. Studied on ESD controll for nano-devices 2. To continue the nano-device ESD controll study3. Studied for the environment performance of EMI, acoustic noise and temperature

3. To continue the environment performance study

1. 4 Meetings were held; 5/23, 6/27, 8/1, and 9/9 1. To continue to revise the standards2. Next meeting will be held in Oct., followed by in Jan. 2. To make new standards if necessary3. Revised standards for Micro-contamination: Almost finished= M12-99, M13-99 On going= M11-99

3. To discuss cleanliness/contamination control on manufacturing, parts, and HDD4. To hold workshops1. To plan workshop with JEITA or automotive organization2. To discuss the removable HDD standardization

1. To make a method of measuring power consumption

ContaminationControl

Automotive HDD /Removable HDD

1. Started activities about the standardization activity of the Automotive HDD2. Promote standardization activity of Automotive HDD cooperated with JEITA

IDEMA 2008 Events (37 scheduled)USA• Feb 12 Dinner Mtg – Harry Blount, Blount Ventures

& Sherri Scribner, Deutsche Bank• May 15 Dinner Meeting – Michael Wingert, Seagate• May 15 Reliability Symposium (at NetApps)• Jun 10 Breakfast with the Analysts – J. Monroe• Sep 15 IDEMA Golf Tournament• Sep 17 -18 DISKCON USA 2008• Nov 13 Breakfast with the Analysts – M. Geenen• Dec 11 “What’s In Store for Storage, The Future of

No Non-Volatile Technologies”• Standards Meetings through the year

JAPAN• Jan 18 Seminar & Annual New Year Celebration• Apr 18 Seminar• Jul 22 - 23 DISKCON JAPAN 2008• Oct 17 Seminar• Various educational classes and Standards Meetings

through the year

MALAYSIA• May 20 CSR Symposium• June 2 & 3 CSR Class (Kuala Lumpur)• June 4 & 5 CSR Class (Kuala Lumpur)

SINGAPORE• Feb 15 Members’ Night• Mar 5 - 6 DISKCON ASIA-PACIFIC 2008• Mar 7 DISKCON Golf • May 9 Members’ Night• Jul 7 Breakfast Talk• Sep 12 Members’ Night• Nov 3 Breakfast Talk• Dec 19 Members’ Night

CHINA• Mar 10 DISKCON ASIA-PACIFIC 2008• Apr 11 Networking Golf (Suzhou)• Jun 6 Talk and Dinner (Wuxi)• Oct 17 Traveling Symposium (Wuxi)• Nov 12 Members’ Night• Nov 14 Talk and Dinner (Suzhou)

BANGKOK, THAILAND• Jan 21 CSR Symposium• Mar 3 DISKCON ASIA-PACIFIC 2008• May 23 & 24 CSR Class• May 29 & 30 CSR Class• May 26 Evening Talk and Cocktail• Aug 26 Talk and Dinner• Oct 20 Traveling Symposium• Dec 12 Networking Golf

Reliability Standards for Solid State Storage

Jon G. ElerathNetApp & IDEMANovember 3, 2008

Outline

• Why is IDEMA here?• a proposal• why are we making this proposal?• thoughts behind the proposal

• How we got to where we are today• background of IDEMA and HDD reliability• what have we learned about HDD reliability?

• failure modes/mechanisms• tests and test data• field data and characteristics

• Where this is leading us• IDEMA reliability standards update status

• reliability conference• designers, manufacturers (test houses), end users

Why is IDEMA here?

Why is IDEMA Here?

• Propose joint development of reliability standards for SSDs, among IDEMA, JEDEC and SNIA

• Standards should build on current knowledge• current JEDEC standards for electronic devices• JEDEC 64.8 Committee• IDEMA Reliability Standards Committee• SNIA Knowledge

• Reliability standards address needs of• HDD manufacturers• SSD manufacturers• integrators (NetApp, HP, IBM, et al.)

Thoughts behind the Proposal?

• Solid state disks (SSDs) now compete with and/or complement HDDs

• form• fit• function

• Customers (Integrators) will compare all features and specifications of SSDs and HDDs

• engineers (technical)• purchasing (often non-technical)

• How do we meet the needs of all consumers of both HDDs and SSDs in terms of reliability standards?

Thoughts behind the Proposal?

• IDEMA already has HDD standards, which are under revision, and is embarking on SSD reliability standards

• JEDEC, SNIA and IDEMA have all dived into the SSD reliability standards arena

• Desirable to:• eliminate duplicate efforts• prevent conflicting standards• address needs of both industries (HDD & SSD)

Thoughts behind the Proposal

• Consistency (between HDD and SSD)• definitions & terms• statistics (calculations)

• Compatibility• tests and statistical methods that are compatible or consistent with

HDDs• Address and document similarities and differences

between HDD and SSDs reliability• physics• failure mechanisms

How we got to this point (in reliability standards development)

Background

• Historically, marketing driven specifications• “My MTBF is bigger than yours”• some customers want MTBF because it is “easy”• data shows MTBF is pretty much irrelevant!

• 1996 Dataquest conference• HDD Manufacturers specify HDD reliability as an MTBF• no one in the auditorium achieved the specifications• great dissatisfaction with MTBF approach• statistical reasons MTBF is meaningless

• IDEMA committee developed HDD reliability standards• R1-98: HDD Handling Environment Assessment & Simulation for

Procedure Using Test Tailoring• R2-98: Specification of Hard Disk Drive Reliability• R3-98: Disk Drive Reliability Benchmark Test Specifications

What Affects HDD Reliability?

• Different markets demand different assumptions/bases• duty cycle

• short, random• long, sequential

• use environment• thermal• vibration• hot-plug & cold-plug• 50k start/stop vs. “always-on”

uncorrectable errorscorrectable errorshead-disk interfacecontaminationthermal

duty cycleoperational use (read vs. write)test accuracy data analyses methods

“bath-tub” curves

HDD Reliability Tests

• Reliability Demonstration Tests (RDT) • similarities among manufacturers, but not standardized• inconsistent quantities and durations• no agreed process for “retest” to verify fixes• failure discounting not standardized

• On-going Reliability Tests (ORT)• similarities among manufacturers, but not standardized• inconsistent quantities and durations• failure discounting not standardized• data analysis methods not standardized (some are wrong!)

• Some tests used to drive “management success”• All the above vary by market segment as well• Quality fixes (yield) confused with reliability fixes

HDD Field Data

• Visibility• manufacturers lack visibility to real field data• quality of data varies by market segment

• no info (worst)• quantities shipped & returned (better)• individual time to failure (and success) for every HDD in a large

population (best!)• Attributes from field data analyses

• rarely does the failure distribution for a server HDD have a constant failure rate (MTBF is not meaningful)

• vintage has great effect on reliability• RDT and ORT not effective for prediction

• Quality varies greatly by market segment• mobile• desktop• server (high-end)

Field Data Results

• HDD reliability depends on vintage

10.0 100000.0100.0 1000.0 10000.01.0E-3

5.0E-3 1.0E-2

5.0E-2 0.1

0.5 1.0

5.0 10.0

50.0

90.0 99.0

1.0E-3

Time to Failure, hrs.

Perc

ent F

aile

d

WeibullVintage 1

F=309

β1=0.9839, η1=6.7411Ε+5

Vintage 2

F=624

β2=1.2963, η2=1.3262Ε+5

Vintage 3

F=902

β3=1.3577, η3=8.4842Ε+4

S=16926

S=16047

S=16018

Field Data Results

• HDD failures indicate multiple failure distributions

0.01

0.05 0.1

0.51.

5.10.

50.

90.99.

0.01

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2.0

3.0

6.0

β

η

Time to Failure, hrs

Prob

abili

ty o

f Fai

lure

HDD #1

HDD #2

HDD #3

Field Data Results

• Different HDD failure mechanisms have different failure rate characteristics

Drive A Hazard Rate Plot

Haz

ard

Rat

e

Time

Each “FM” is a different failure mode/mechanism

HDD Reliability Prediction SummaryTheoretic "Bathtub Curve"

β < 1 .0

β = 1 .0

β >2 .0

Sum

0

0.00001

0.00002

0.00003

0.00004

0.00005

0.00006

0 8760 17520 26280 35040 43800 52560 61320 70080 78840 87600Hours

Inst

anta

neou

s Fai

lure

R

ate

Constant failure rate assumed in JEDEC standards (β = 1.0)

HDD failure rates typically have: 1.0 < β < 2.0Late life can be very complex, as shown

(Time scales are arbitrary, not real)

General Shape of Real Data

1 .0 < β < 2 .0

Complex

0

0.000005

0.00001

0.000015

0.00002

0.000025

0.00003

0 8760 17520 26280 35040 43800 52560 61320 70080 78840 87600

Hours

Inst

anta

neou

s Fai

lure

R

ate

Where this is Leading Us

Where this is Leading Us?

• Highlights the need to• prevent confusion between SSD and HDD reliability standards• eliminate duplication of efforts

• Three basically different markets• mobile• desktop• server (& all high-end)

• Acknowledge differences in markets• duty cycle and duty cycle effects on reliability

• short, random versus long, sequential• bizarre (complex) time to failure distributions• read/write disturbs• endurance limits

• use environment

Where this is Leading Us

• Need “robust” standards to address needs of manufacturer and integrator

• Address technology differences (failure mechanisms)• HDI and contamination vs. endurance and “disturbs”• environmental effects

• Address test differences• mechanism differences• “rules” for failures (when/how to discount failures)

• Types of reliability tests• reliability demonstration test (RDT)• on-going reliability tests (ORT)• start/stop test

• Specify robust statistical methods• test development• field data analyses

IDEMA Reliability Standards Update Status

IDEMA Reliability Standards Update

• Update current IDEMA standards and address issues identified

• Create new standards to augment existing ones• Develop different standards for different market segments

as necessary• Great interest

• in revising HDD reliability standard• develop SSD reliability standard

IDEMA Technical Symposium, May 15, 2008

• Corporate participation• Jon Elerath, NetApp: The Physics, Mathematics, and Statistics of Reliability Assessment

• Pat Wilkison, STEC-Inc.: Solving the Challenges of SSD Reliability

• Ravi Chari, Sun Microsystems: Determining the Reliability of Disk Drives -Current Challenges

• Jason Pollock, Hewlett Packard: Hard Disk Drive Reliability - HP Experience and Expectations

• Dave Verburg, IBM: IBM Disk Drive Reliability

• Dr. John McNulty, DfR Solutions: Current Concerns Regarding Solid State Drive Reliability

• Dr. George Tyndall, Samsung: Role of the Head-Disk Interface in HDD Reliability

• Dr. Arkady Kanevsky, NetApp: Why Disks Fail

• David James, Fujitsu Computer Products of America: "Hard Error"-An Examination of Disk Drive Failure Modes

• David Jackson, Cool Clean: Changing the Game Rules with CO2

• Ed Dawson, Flexstar: Standardizing and Testing for SSD's and HDD's

• Steve Grenyer and Darren Beck, Xyratex International: The Evolving Stable Product: A Contradiction of Terms

• Steve Hetzler, IBM: System Impacts of HDD & Flash Reliability

Backup Material

What is the Definition of Failure?Source: Jon Elerath, “The Physics, Mathematics and Statistics of Reliability Assessment,” NetApp

HDD Failures and System Responses

Source: Arkady Kanevsky, “Why Disks Fail,” NetApp

Failure Modes, Mechanisms and Causes

Proportionate summary of failure reasonsSource: Dave Verburg, “IBM Disk Drive Reliability,” IBM (used with permission)

Not applicable to any particular program or platform

Head/Media

Mechanical

Card/Other

NDF

CND FW

Make sure bus chips and adapters are not contributing to drive removals

Improve event logging and other tools

Improve Cleanliness, other head/media actions

As drive improves, NDF improves NDF = No Defect Found

CND = Could not Duplicate

FW = Firmware

Failure Modes, Mechanisms and Causes

• HDDs in top 2-3 for warranty returns (HP)• NFF - single largest contributor across all segments• Handling - primarily notebook• Contamination...the “single largest HDD caused reason” (HP)

• NDF/CND/FW greatest causes for removal (Verburg-IBM)• Failure of the head-disk interface is found to be the dominant factor

impacting HDD reliability (Samsung)• in highly accelerated stress tests 64% were HDI related• in RDT 75% were HDI related• from field, 35.4% were HDI related

• 60% NTF/CND (Sun)

Failure Modes, Mechanisms and Causes

• Mobile failures similar for integration and field (Fujitsu)• handling damage• NTF/CND• HDD build issues (incl. contamination)• component failure

• NDF:CND = 3:1 (Fujitsu)• NDF due to misdiagnosis• CND due to

• electrical issues• high-fly writes

Trends in Field Reliability (HDDs Only)

• Field ARRs steadily decreasing (Nov ’06 Mar ’08) (Pollock-HP)• SAS 50% improvement over pSCSI in Nov ’08 (Pollock-HP)• HDD reliability is improving 2003-2007 (Verburg-IBM)

Drive failure rate History

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

High EndEntry

10-20% improvement per year

Drive Failure rateHigh End drives vs entry drives

• Duty Cycle• Reject Criteria/Health checks• Environment• Disk space utilization• System interactions• Etc.

Why the difference?

Source: Dave Verburg, “IBM Disk Drive Reliability,” IBM (used with permission)

Solid State Drives

• Will be nearly impossible to demonstrate reliability for current UER’sneeded for flash, not even addressing the “surface” phenomenon (Hetzler-IBM)

• Customer owns reliability (Hetzler)• SSDs should be treated very differently from HDDs (Hetzler)

1E+001E+011E+021E+031E+041E+051E+06

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E+03

1E+04

1E+05

Error R

ate Multiplier

Write Age (S)

Example Error Rate Surface

Source: Steven Hetzler, “System Impacts of HDD and Flash Reliability,” IBM

Solid State Drives

• FLASH/SSD test verification issues (Hetzler-IBM)• SSDs have different failure modes/mechanisms, so tests

must be different. (Flexstar)• Classical HDD reliability test-benchmarks are (Chari-Sun)

• being questioned• getting harder to demonstrate• do not address user experience• Arguably, increasingly meaningless