Who is using an SSD?

[Volvohead]

We're rebuilding the home server after 7 uneventful years, and are considering an SSD over traditional platters for the boot drive. I like the reduced heat, noise, power draw, reliability and high I/O levels even in a non-mobile app.

The Intel X-25M drives are looking better, and increasingly cheaper, but are still no bargain (over $400 for 160gb). But we don't need large capacity, as we keep all data on multiple HW RAID-5 arrays. OS and apps only. Mating one with an X-58 chipset should be interesting.

Who is using an SSD, what brands/controllers are you running, and what issues are you encountering. Samsung and Intel based units appear to have the best rep so far, but field comments are always compelling.

 

[bepperb]

Reduced reliability?

Why do you want that. Contrary to popular belief, you can't write to a ssd forever, so they employ wear leveling especially in the MLC drives. Just like a conventional drive, sectors will go bad over time. Besides shock protection, there isn't a benifit MTBF wise.

If it were me, get a few conventional drives in a RAID 5 array. Two SSD drives mirrored to run the os and server apps would be cool, but probably cost prohibitive.

Intel would be my choice.

 

[Volvohead]

Thanks, but you misread my post.

The SSD is for the boot drive. We already warehouse data in traditional enterprise class arrays. The arrays do most of the I/O work. I'm looking for fast reads without a lot of heat or power draw. Or head crashes.

I'm all aware of the arguments against SSDs. But claiming a traditional enterprise drive equally or more reliable is not credible with me. I've had plenty of enterprise drives go south early. I'm not looking for forever; a few years will be plenty.

Now, if you have worked with a specific SSD, I'd like to know the implementation particulars. I'd rather not descend into a SSD v. HDD discussion.

 

[bepperb]

I guess [for me] it would depend on if you plan on mirroring the boot drive. 800 bucks is too rich for my blood for a boot drive.

Sorry, we're all SAN.

"But claiming a traditional enterprise drive equally or more reliable is not credible with me."

It's not more reliable, but it comes in at a cost where you can have a 3 to 1 advantage over an SSD, at least, so from a per-dollar-spent they are more reliable... 400 bucks on SSD will get you non-redundant 160gb, the same price can have four terabyte drives in raid 5 with a hot spare, 2tb total capacity.

 

[Volvohead]

I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

I don't always array boot drives for a home quality server, as the core priority is data protection and not necessarily uptime. I don't like to share data and OS in that environment, so the data gets the bigger money. A quad of TB enterprise drives is still closer to $600 (if you're seeing them for $100, let me know where). One array in the server is enough, with an independent backup array remotely placed. A boot crash is recoverable from backup in a couple hours.

We did run mirrored small Raptors in a non-SCSI boot array on the last home build. They've been flawless, if noisy and hot. I think a single SSD SATA2 drive will be fine this time around. Thermal and noise management are bigger concerns now.

After all, it is a house and not a datacenter. Most folks "don't try this at home", as they say.

Now, about those SSDs . . .

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

The Intel's are the Cat's Meow of SSD drive, but be sure to tune the heck out of the O.S. so it doesn't write to the disk to often--kill the page file or put it on another array, log files on a different array, system temp dir on another array, etc.

http://www.gskill.us/forum/showthread.php?t=913

The G-Skill Patriot and the new Torqx models are nice. I'm using several right now with XP on a number of machines to see how they will fare on the long haul, however these aren't SLC based units.

The Samsung SLC's are nice, put them in a RAID-0 array on a good controller card with the tweaks above, FAST! IF you can find them. Seems like the big names have sucked up supply lately.

The Intel models are the cat's meow, but are EXPENSIVE. Once the price comes down to the current Patriot/Torqx levels, we'll take the plunge with them for a Asus VMWare server (VMware server 1.x/2.x, not ESX).

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
. . . kill the page file or put it on another array, log files on a different array, system temp dir on another array, etc.


You read my mind. We'll be loading this one up with RAM, so can take some initial liberties with the page config.

The Intels seem to be the current cream, but are still ugly expensive. We're still 60 days from purchase, and I expect some further price fall by then. If the price is right, I have no problem with the latest Samsungs. The JMicron controllers give me pause, though.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Do NOT, repeat do NOT use anything with the JMicron controllers. They are as awful as DOS 4.0, the Titanic and the movie Ishtar all rolled into one. I bought a couple low-end PATA SSD's from RiData with those controllers to boost the speed on a couple aging laptops. Pure skunk. Blech. The RiDATA SLC-based PATA drives were really good, just not the MLC models.

 

[Volvohead]

Kingston claims to have cleaned up the JMicrons on their latest consumer grade models to the point where they are manageable. But the very negative feedback to this controller family is hard to overcome. I'm not planning to put one in this application.

A couple other factors with the MLCs: it pays to buy as large as possible - not just for value, but for service life. The projected life expands exponentially with larger banks using the leveling algorithms. With anything over 128gb, it's long enough that the drive will be size-obsolete long before the chips start slowing. That's why an 160gb Intel doesn't scare me as much in an MLC. I don't keep any drive much longer than 5 years, and that's well within the service envelope on a 160gb.

It's the little 16 and 32gb JMicrons that really soured early migrators. It's called the "bleeding edge" for a reason.

 

[Lyondellic]

I heard someone at work talking about installing the OS on a SSD, then using multiple SATA2 drives in Raid-0 for everything else.

Maybe this is a decent approach, but I cannot justify the cost/benefit of using SSD drives on my home computer. I don't mind if it takes a few seconds longer to boot up Windows7 or open programs. I am sure that this will change as SSD's become more affordable, larger and reliable.

 

[Volvohead]

Originally Posted By: Lyondellic
I heard someone at work talking about installing the OS on a SSD, then using multiple SATA2 drives in Raid-0 for everything else.


Raid 0 for data? That seems to be living dangerously if you ask me.

I'll occasionally run 0 for a boot drive if there's backup and the data is elsewhere. But I'll stick with Raid 5 for data storage.

 

[Virtuoso]

I run RAID0 for data and OS; backup nightly to an external.

 

[OVERKILL]

I always add the +1 to the 0

Or RAID 5.

 

[Lyondellic]

Only my 16 year old son's computer is set up to run in Raid-0. It is a gaming rig that I built several years ago and has 4 Western Digital Raptors, but it is seldom used for games anymore since the XBox 360 came out. There is nothing "mission critical" on it, so I am not greatly concerned.

 

[Virtuoso]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I always add the +1 to the 0

Or RAID 5.


Grin. Next system build I do I'll be adding the +1.