Moore’s Law Scaling Realities for Storage Components: LTO ... · R. Fontana, G. Decad, R. Biskeborn -IBM Systems September 18, 2017 Moore’s Law Scaling Realities for Storage Components:

R.Fontana,G.Decad,R.Biskeborn- IBMSystemsSeptember18,2017

Moore’sLawScalingRealitiesforStorageComponents:LTOTAPE,HDDandNAND

Fontana,Decad,Biskeborn- IBMSystems Moore'sLawScalingRealitiesforStorageComponents 1

TOPICS


• Moore’slawforintegratedcircuits

• Moore’slawscalingappliedtostorage: bitarealdensityandcostperbit

• Bitarealdensityand$/gigabitstrendsforTAPE,HDD,andNAND(3and8yr periods)

• Costscalingdeviationsandotherproblems

• Summary

WhatisMoore’slaw?


• 1965:GordonMooreobservedthatthenumberoftransistors,resistorsandcapacitorsinanintegratedcircuit(IC)hadbeenincreasingexponentially(2xperyear); thisimpliedthattheunitcostofthetransistors,etc.,thatcouldbecrammedintoanICwasdecreasingexponentially

• 1975:MoorerefinedhisobservationandmadeprojectionthatICcomplexitywoulddoubleevery2years (withICcostremainingstatic)- thisbecameknownas‘Moore’sLaw’

• Theimplicationofthisistheunitcostofthetransistors,etc.,willdecrease2xevery2years

• Thereisacloseparalleltothisfordigitaldatastorage

Bits,arealdensityandscaling

Moore'sLawScalingRealitiesforStorageComponents 4

• Instoragearchitectures,dimensionsofthebits(the1’sand0’s)determinebitarealdensity

• Thus,bitsareanalogoustotransistors,resistors,etc.,andtheaggregateareaoftheallthebits,toanIC

• ForNAND,bitdimensionsarephotolithographicallydefined(moreakintotheparadigmbehindMoore’slaw)• Scalingmeansimprovementsinphotolithography(XandY)andotherICprocesses(X,YandZ)

• Formagneticstorage,thebitdimensionsareestablishedduringwritingthebits ontothemagneticmedium• Bitwidth(X)issetbythewidthofthewritehead(HDD)orshinglingpitch(TAPE,someHDD)• Bitlength(Y)issetbythewritingfrequencyandspeedofthemagneticmediumunderthehead• Scalingmeansnarrowerwrittentracksandshorterbitlength

Fontana,Decad,Biskeborn- IBMSystems

• Instoragetechnology,bitarealdensity(D) ideallyincreasesexponentiallywithanannualgrowthfactorof(1+α)• Year0: D=D0

• YearN: DN =D0 x(1+α)N

• Ifthecost/unitareaofstorageisconstant,thenthecostperbit(C) decreasesexponentiallywithanannualdecreasefactorof(1- β)• Year0: C=C0• YearN: CN =C0 x(1- β)N

• Andtherelationshipbetweenthe2factorsis:• β =α /(1+α)

• Thus,an‘ideal’Moore’slawICscalingequivalentforstoragecomponentswouldgive:• Bitarealdensitydoublingevery2years,i.e α =0.41(41%annualincrease)• Cost/unitofmediaarearemainingconstantè cost/bithalvesevery2years,i.e β =0.29(29%annualdecrease)

Moore’sexponentiallawforstorage:bitarealdensity,costperbit


• NANDincreasesareclosertoMoore’sat33%andshownodecreaseinthisrate

• LTOTAPEMEDIAdoubleson~3yearcycle,or25%annually,andshowsnoslowinginthisrate

• HDDincreasesare<<Moore’sscaling;8yearincreasesreducedto14%andshowsignificantslowinginrecenttimeframes

• Blu-rayADisstable,atmostincreasingslowly

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

AREA

LDEN

SITY(G

b/in

2 )

YEAR

HDD NAND LTOTAPEMEDIA

BD-RE

AREALDENSITY(Gbit/in2) 2008 2015 2016

8YEARANNUAL

%Δ

3YEARANNUAL

%Δ

1YEARANNUAL

%Δ

LTOTAPEMEDIA1 0.9 4.1 4.1 21% 25% 0%

HDD 380 1000 1100 14% 7% 10%

NAND 200 1500 2000 33% 33% 33%1.LTOproductson2yearproductcycle,2017LTO8productwillincrease1yearand8yearaverages

But…currentstoragearealdensitygainsarelessthanMoore’s41%*


*Intheperiod2003- 2011,HHDdensitydid growat39%/year

• 29%decreasesincostperbitarenotbeingachieved

• NAND$/GBshowsa3yearaveragedropof20%

• HDD$/GBshowsa3yearaveragedropof18%

• LTOTAPEMEDIA$/GB(distortedbyachangeinLTOdatasources)showsa10%drop

• Blu-raycostperbitisstable,nodrop

0.01

0.1

1

10

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

$/GB

YEAR

HDD NAND LTOTAPEMEDIA

100GBBD

50GBBD

25GBBD

BD-RE

$/GB 2008 2015 20168YEARANNUAL

%Δ

3YEARANNUAL

%Δ

1YEARANNUAL

%Δ

LTOTAPEMEDIA1 0.091 0.018 0.016 -19% -10% -10%

HDD 0.272 0.051 0.039 -21% -18% -23%

NAND 3.330 0.401 0.320 -25% -20% -20%1.Datasourcechangefrom2014to2015distortsLTOaverages

And…currently,reductionsincostperbitarelessthanMoore’s29%


• DiskcostisunitcostoftheHDDbrick,whichincludesplatters,heads,electronics,etc.

• Tapecostisforthemediacartridgeonly;drivecostistypicallyincludedinautomationandissignificantlylessthanthecostofthemedia

AnimportantdistinctionbetweenHDDandTAPE


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

AnnaulCost/BitDecrease-%

(βx10

0)

AnnualArealDensityIncrease- %(α x100)

IdealMoore’sLaw

%Arealdensityincrease/year(α)

%Costp

erbitde

crease/year(β)

Cost/BitReduction<Moore’sLawMetric(DevelopmentCost,MarketForces)

Cost/BitReduction>Moore’sLawMetric(SimpleScaling,MarketSharePressure)

$/GBandarealdensity‘dynamics’


cost/unitareaofstoragemediaisconstant

ThisplotisageneralizationofMoore’s-likeexponentialscalingforstorage.RecallthatGordonMoore’spredictionforIC’swasadoublingevery2years(the‘dot’)atconstantICcost

• LTOTAPE,NAND:8yrdatafollowaMoore’slawtrend,while3yrdatafallbelowit,implying(1)marketforcesand/or(2)greaterinvestmentwasneededforthegainindensity

• HDD:8yrand3yrdataareabovetheMoore’slawtrend,implying(1)marketforcecompetitionand/or(2)themodestarealdensitygainsdidnotdriveupcost

• Observation1: Historical8yrdatashows$/bitforalltechnologiesfellbetween20%to25%annually

• Observation2:Historical3yrdatashowslower$/bitreductionsforalltechnologiesrelativeto8yrdata

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

AnnaulCost/BitDecrease-%

(βx10

0)

AnnualArealDensityIncrease- %(α x100)

IdealMoore’sLaw

NAND

%Arealdensityincrease/year(α)

%Costp

erbitde

crease/year(β)

Cost/BitReduction>Moore’sLawMetric(SimpleScaling,MarketSharePressure)

(8yr)

(3yr)

LTOTAPE

(8yr)

(3yr)

HDD

Cost/BitReduction<Moore’sLawMetric(DevelopmentCost,MarketForces)

(8yr)

(3yr)

$/GBandarealdensity‘dynamics’


• Presentday storagecomponenttrendsarenotmeetingMoore’slawforICs• Annualdensityincreaseisnot41%,butrangesfrom10%to30% (dependingontechnology)• Costperbitdecreaseisnot29%,butcloserto10%to20%, (dependingontechnology)

• Critically,thecosttoproduceaunitareaofstorage isNOTremainingconstant,butratherisincreasing• Physicsandtherequiredlinewidthsassociatedwithscalingbitcellsareraisingdevelopmentcosts• Marketingforces

• Further,thelandscapeofstoragecomponentmanufacturersischanging• Fewercompetitors(bothHDDandTAPE)• Manufacturingcapacityconstraints(NAND)• Limitedmarket(Optical)

WhatarethescalingREALITIES


• Feynmanfamouslystatedin1959(theyearthefirstintegratedcircuitswerebuilt),‘thereisplentyofroomatthebottom,’i.e.youcanalwaysmakethingssmaller• 1959minimumfeatures~1500um• 2017minimumfeatures~0.015um• In60yearslinewidthsfellby~105 andcellareasfellby~1010

• 2017NANDchips(12mmx12mm)contain256x109 bits,whilechipsin1960contained1to5bits[1]

• Thus,for~50years,theMoore’slaw‘contract’hadbeen:reducecomponentcostperbitbyfinding‘roomatthebottom’withsmallerbitcelldevicesatthesamecostperunittotalstoragearea

• Inthelast5years,the‘art’ofmakingbitcellssmaller,though,hasincreasedthecostofaunitareaofstorage

[1]JackS.Kilby,MiniaturizedElectronicCircuits,UnitedStatesPatentOffice,USPatent3,138,743,filed6February1959, issued23June1964

And…costeffectivebit-scalingisbecomingmoredifficult


• TAPE:roomatthebottom,socontinuescaling(Moore’slaw)

• HDD:noroomatthebottom,soaddmoreplatters(notMoore’slaw)

• OPTICAL:someroomatthebottom,limitedbyλ,soaddmorelayers(notMoore’slaw)

• NAND:noroomatthebottom,soaddmorelayersatthemedialevel,butprocesslayerssimultaneously(closetoMoore’slaw)

40layers,ormoreNAND3DTLC40layers3bit/cell84nmx84nm3000Gbit/in2

HDD58nmx11nm1000Gbit/in2

ENTERPRISETAPE1350nmx47nm9Gbit/in2

LTOTAPE~3200nmx47nm4Gbit/in2

OPTICALBD-XL3layerlandrecording180nmdiameter75Gbit/in2

10TB3.5”drive7-8platters/~1.4TB/platter

1.2TBcartridge12platters/~0.1TB/platter

6TBCartridge,1000mtapelength

15TBcartridge,1100mtapelength

7TB12”wafer44012mmx12mmdies/~256Gb/die

Bitcelldimensions


• ArealDensityStrategy isaddingmorelayers

• Cost/bitreductionsaremaintainedprovidedalllayersareprocessedinasinglesteptoformindividualstackedbitcells

• ContinuedscalingandMoore’slawarelimitedbyabilitytocontinuallydoublenumberoflayers

• Densityincreaseof4Xto~128layersand4bitspercellareintheoffing

• Costperbitdecreaseof4Xlesslikelysince‘tiered’processingoflayersisrequired,i.e.processthefirst64layersandthenthesecond64layers,etc.

40layersNAND3DTLC40layers3bit/cell84nmx84nm3000Gbit/in2

7TB12”wafer44012mmx12mmdies~256Gb/die

NAND


• Volumetricstrategy isaddingmorediskplatters,withminimalincreaseinaerialdensity

• Cost/ bitintransitioningfrom4TBto10TBcapacitywasmanagedbymovingfrom4to7or8platters,butthismeantincreasingthemanufacturingareaforcomponents(headsanddisksurfaces)

• ScalingandhenceMoore’slawgainsarelimitedbyabilitytocontinuallydoublenumberofplatters

• Densityincreaseof2Xpossiblebutadditionofmoreplatterswillbedifficult

• Cost/ bitreductionshavelimitedscalingpotentialduetodifficultyofincreasingarealdensity,e.g.HAMR

HDD58nmx11nm1000Gbit/in2

10TB3.5”Drive7-8platters/~1.4TB/platter

HDD


source:idema.org

HAMRisneededtoenablesignificantHDDbitlengthscaling


shrinkingHDDbitdimensionsfaceschallengesinbothdirections:

X(SMR)andY(KBPI)

• ArealDensityStrategy isclassicalplanarscaling,i.e.makingthebitcellsmaller

• Costlikelyislikelytobemanagedsince(1)classicalscalingisused,(2)TAPEusesHDDexistingtechnology(‘nonewphysics’),and(3)lengthscalesandmediaparticlesizeswillscaleforthefuture

• Costdynamicsmaybeinfluencedbymarketsources

• 4Xdensityincreasesproviding>40TBcartridgecapacitiesareonly4yearsonthehorizon

• TheFuture

EnterpriseTAPE1350nmx47nm9Gbit/in2

LTOTAPE3200nmx47nm4Gbit/in2



TAPEDemonstration(2017)103nmx31nm207Gbit/in2

TAPE


TapehasroomtocontinuebitscalinginbothXandYdirections

TAPEscalingrequires‘nonewphysics’


• Moore’slawforICs(doublingdensityevery2years,andcost/bithalvingeverytwoyears)isnotbeingachievedbyLTOTAPE,HDD,NAND (NANDbeingtheclosest)

• Bitcellscalingisloosingcostefficiency• Physics,e.g.HAMR• Processingsmallerfeatures- nano technologylimits(HDD,NAND)• Cost-per-bitreductionsaretrendingtolessthan20%/year

• Marketforcesarenowimpacting$/GBreductions• 3yearand8yeartrendsshowdecreasein$/GBreductionsforalltechnologies• Thereisanunder-capacityinNAND(notenoughfactoriestomeetHDDdemandinforeseeablefuture)• HDDmarkethasshiftedfrompersonaldevicestodatacenterapplications• Thereistapeconsolidation(1drivemanufacturer,2mediasuppliers)

SUMMARY


APPENDIX


2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

HDD

Units(HDDmillions) 540 557 652 620 577 551 564 470 425

PBShipped(PB) 125000 200000 330000 335000 380000 470000 549000 565000 693000

ArealDensity(Gb/in2) 380 530 635 750 750 900 900 1000 1100

Revenue($billions) 34.0 34.0 33.0 33.5 37.5 33.4 33.4 28.3 26.8

$/GBShipped 0.272 0.170 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.071 0.061 0.051 0.039

NAND

Wafers(12“-millions) 7.3 8.3 9.7 11.3 12.1 13.7 14.8 15.9 17.0

PBShipped(PB) 3000 5430 10464 18600 28000 39000 62500 83000 120000

ArealDensity(Gb/in2) 200 280 330 550 550 850 1200 1500 2000

Revenue($billions) 10.1 12.1 18.5 21.5 22.0 24.0 32.2 33.2 38.7

$/GBShipped 3.33 2.23 1.77 1.16 0.78 0.615 0.515 0.401 0.320

LTOTAPEMEDIA

Units(Cartmillions) 27.1 24.3 25.0 24.3 23.4 21.6 22.2 19.4 19.4

PBShipped(PB) 11050 11960 15340 18420 20680 24270 30100 33020 40320

ArealDensity(Gb/in2) 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 4.1 4.11

Revenue<SCCG.com>($billions)2 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.62 0.54 0.50

Revenue<LTO.org>($billions)2 0.59 0.65

$/GBShipped 0.0905 0.0585 0.0456 0.0380 0.0300 0.0222 0.0166 0.0177 0.0162

1.LTOon2yearproductcycleforarealdensity2.LTOdatasourceshiftsfromSCCGtoLTOConsortiumin2015.Datadiscontinuityforrevenueand$/GBin2014-2015transition

StorageLandscape- 9YearHistory


• ArealDensityStrategy isaddingmorestoragelayersontheplasticdisksubstrate

• Costperbitlikelynotwellmanaged,sincethepatterningorprocessingofeachstoragelayerisdoneindividually

• A2-sided3+3layerdiskmayhave2Xthecapacityofthesinglesided3layerdiskbutatcloseto2xthecostofthesinglesided3layerdisk.

• Scaling,andhenceMoore’slawgeometricfigureofmeritgains,arelimitedbyabilitytosimultaneouslyprocessindividuallayers

• Landandgrooverecordingwilllikelyincreasedensityby1.5Xattheexpenseoferrorrate

• Costperbitreductionshavelimitedpotentialwithlandandgrooverecording,providingthepotentialforonlyaonetime30%reductionincostperbit

OpticalBD-XL3layerlandrecording180nmdiameter75Gbit/in2

1.2TBCartridge12disks~0.1TB/platter

OpticalBD-XL


Documents

Moore’s Law Scaling Realities for Storage Components: LTO ... · R. Fontana, G. Decad, R. Biskeborn -IBM Systems September 18, 2017 Moore’s Law Scaling Realities for Storage Components: