ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    When is SSD a MUST HAVE for server? thoughts? Discussion :D

    IT Discussion
    storage ssd
    13
    84
    22.6k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      Here is a quick guide, however:

      • File Servers: Currently almost always Winchesters because capacity is what matters.
      • App Servers: Winchesters normally because everything gets loaded into memory and disk speed doesn't matter.
      • Database Servers: Almost always SSDs because IOPS matter and little else.
      • Terminal Servers and VDI: Almost always SSD because speed matters and capacity does not and dedupe is very effective.
      L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
      • L
        LAH3385 @scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        @scottalanmiller said:

        Here is a quick guide, however:

        • File Servers: Currently almost always Winchesters because capacity is what matters.
        • App Servers: Winchesters normally because everything gets loaded into memory and disk speed doesn't matter.
        • Database Servers: Almost always SSDs because IOPS matter and little else.
        • Terminal Servers and VDI: Almost always SSD because speed matters and capacity does not and dedupe is very effective.

        I forgot to mention. The server is actually a hypervisor with VM (Hyper-V) acting as File Server. Not sure if that make any different. I'm guessing it falls under VDI.

        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          hubtechagain
          last edited by

          technically the answer is NEVER. it's never a must. if it were....

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            scottalanmiller @LAH3385
            last edited by

            @LAH3385 said:

            @scottalanmiller said:

            Here is a quick guide, however:

            • File Servers: Currently almost always Winchesters because capacity is what matters.
            • App Servers: Winchesters normally because everything gets loaded into memory and disk speed doesn't matter.
            • Database Servers: Almost always SSDs because IOPS matter and little else.
            • Terminal Servers and VDI: Almost always SSD because speed matters and capacity does not and dedupe is very effective.

            I forgot to mention. The server is actually a hypervisor with VM (Hyper-V) acting as File Server. Not sure if that make any different. I'm guessing it falls under VDI.

            How would that fall under VDI? You said it was a file server, it would be a file server.

            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • L
              LAH3385 @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said:

              @LAH3385 said:

              @scottalanmiller said:

              Here is a quick guide, however:

              • File Servers: Currently almost always Winchesters because capacity is what matters.
              • App Servers: Winchesters normally because everything gets loaded into memory and disk speed doesn't matter.
              • Database Servers: Almost always SSDs because IOPS matter and little else.
              • Terminal Servers and VDI: Almost always SSD because speed matters and capacity does not and dedupe is very effective.

              I forgot to mention. The server is actually a hypervisor with VM (Hyper-V) acting as File Server. Not sure if that make any different. I'm guessing it falls under VDI.

              How would that fall under VDI? You said it was a file server, it would be a file server.

              Yeah. My bad. Just read more about VDI and it doesn't apply to us

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • M
                MattSpeller
                last edited by MattSpeller

                Cost of SSD
                Current IOPS held back by spinning rust
                Future IOPS requirements
                Supporting hardware (RAID controller upgrade? 3.5" to 2.5" adapters?)

                Add all that up, so to speak. Then subtract the cost of a whizzing rust array. If cost <= benefit, purchase.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • D
                  Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  typically a single SSD will provide more IOPs than an entire 8 drive arrary of spinning rust will. At that point it's about bus bandwidth and price.

                  S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                    last edited by

                    @Dashrender said:

                    typically a single SSD will provide more IOPs than an entire 8 drive arrary of spinning rust will. At that point it's about bus bandwidth and price.

                    And by typical, he means "any we've ever heard of."

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • S
                      scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      The fastest 8 drive RAID 0 array on SAS 15K is only around 2,000 IOPS. Slowest SSD is normally around 25,000 IOPS.

                      B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • B
                        BRRABill @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        The fastest 8 drive RAID 0 array on SAS 15K is only around 2,000 IOPS. Slowest SSD is normally around 25,000 IOPS.

                        My IOPS on the EDGE SSDs from the other day were
                        Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 387.262 MB/s [ 94546.4 IOPS]
                        Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 95.829 MB/s [ 23395.8 IOPS]

                        D M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • D
                          DustinB3403 @BRRABill
                          last edited by DustinB3403

                          @BRRABill said:

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          The fastest 8 drive RAID 0 array on SAS 15K is only around 2,000 IOPS. Slowest SSD is normally around 25,000 IOPS.

                          My IOPS on the EDGE SSDs from the other day were
                          Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 387.262 MB/s [ 94546.4 IOPS]
                          Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 95.829 MB/s [ 23395.8 IOPS]

                          So, stupidly faster than what you were used to?

                          B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • B
                            BRRABill @DustinB3403
                            last edited by

                            @DustinB3403 said:

                            So, stupidly faster than what you were used to?

                            Oh yeah.

                            My numbers from the regular drives in there was all over the place, but probably pretty normal.
                            I posted them in this thread if anyone is interested:
                            http://www.mangolassi.it/topic/7458/swapping-drive-to-another-raid-controller/2
                            I posted different drives and also differenrt PERC cards.
                            The results don't make 100% sense to me.

                            I've never tested the 10 year old servers I am currently using. That would be interesting.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • M
                              MattSpeller @BRRABill
                              last edited by MattSpeller

                              @BRRABill said:

                              @scottalanmiller said:

                              The fastest 8 drive RAID 0 array on SAS 15K is only around 2,000 IOPS. Slowest SSD is normally around 25,000 IOPS.

                              My IOPS on the EDGE SSDs from the other day were
                              Random Read 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 387.262 MB/s [ 94546.4 IOPS]
                              Random Write 4KiB (Q= 32,T= 1) : 95.829 MB/s [ 23395.8 IOPS]

                              Did you tweak the block size in the RAID array to optimize for a certain size of file? Would it make a lot of difference on an SSD?

                              I was tweaking it on the logging server I'm setting up and it made a TREMENDOUS difference on spinning rust.

                              B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • B
                                BRRABill @MattSpeller
                                last edited by BRRABill

                                @MattSpeller said:

                                Did you tweak the block size in the RAID array to optimize for a certain size of file? Would it make a lot of difference on an SSD?

                                I was tweaking it on the logging server I'm setting up and it made a TREMENDOUS difference on spinning rust.

                                No.

                                I posted those numbers with the hopes someone would chime in with that kind of info, but no one ever did, really. I htink it got lost because of the topic header.

                                Later today I will repost under a separate topic, I think.

                                M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                • M
                                  MattSpeller @BRRABill
                                  last edited by MattSpeller

                                  @BRRABill said:

                                  @MattSpeller said:

                                  Did you tweak the block size in the RAID array to optimize for a certain size of file? Would it make a lot of difference on an SSD?

                                  I was tweaking it on the logging server I'm setting up and it made a TREMENDOUS difference on spinning rust.

                                  No.

                                  I posted those numbers with the hopes someone would chime in with that kind of info, but no one ever did, really. I htink it got lost because of the topic header.

                                  Later today I will repost under a separate topic, I think.

                                  Please do, I'll share some results with a rust array for comparison if that's helpful

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • ardeynA
                                    ardeyn
                                    last edited by

                                    There is also the difference of using SSD for caching or for storage itself. If you are running 3TB of storage, you would need around 300GB of SSD cache. A cost effective alternative for going all flash.

                                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                    • M
                                      MattSpeller @ardeyn
                                      last edited by

                                      @ardeyn said:

                                      There is also the difference of using SSD for caching or for storage itself. If you are running 3TB of storage, you would need around 300GB of SSD cache. A cost effective alternative for going all flash.

                                      Excellent point, but very dependant on if you've got a controller that supports it

                                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • S
                                        scottalanmiller @MattSpeller
                                        last edited by

                                        @MattSpeller said:

                                        @ardeyn said:

                                        There is also the difference of using SSD for caching or for storage itself. If you are running 3TB of storage, you would need around 300GB of SSD cache. A cost effective alternative for going all flash.

                                        Excellent point, but very dependant on if you've got a controller that supports it

                                        Or software. Lots of people doing it in software too.

                                        M D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • M
                                          MattSpeller @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @scottalanmiller said:

                                          @MattSpeller said:

                                          @ardeyn said:

                                          There is also the difference of using SSD for caching or for storage itself. If you are running 3TB of storage, you would need around 300GB of SSD cache. A cost effective alternative for going all flash.

                                          Excellent point, but very dependant on if you've got a controller that supports it

                                          Or software. Lots of people doing it in software too.

                                          I thought of that a milisecond after I hit submit heheh

                                          At what point would you say it's worth it to dump raid controllers and move to software? Might be a topic for another thread or a dedicated rant.

                                          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • S
                                            scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            Definitely a topic for another thread, but mostly it comes down to the use case. Way better to have it on the controller for a lot of reasons, but more flexible in software. But if you don't have software that supports it, you are screwed.

                                            L 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 1 / 5
                                            • First post
                                              Last post