+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90
Hardware Thread, Building a new SSD based file server in Technical; We ran Vertexes on a Citrix Cluster of 10 servers for 2yrs. The citrix servers get a fair amount of ...
  1. #46


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    We ran Vertexes on a Citrix Cluster of 10 servers for 2yrs. The citrix servers get a fair amount of writes due to their nature. Only had one failure in that time and the smart looked pretty good on the others up until we scrapped them. We upgraded them this term with Icore i7-3820's, and naturally Intel SSD's.

  2. #47

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    574
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 115 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Found some possible software, just testing out SsdReady: Life measurement and monitoring tool for solid-state drives which seems to monitor writes - leave it running for a couple of days on your fileserver and it should give you a decent estimate of actual writes. Currently running it on our student file server out of interest...

  3. #48

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    35
    Thank Post
    18
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    I think the misconception on SSD reliability is because they don't fail (in general) like a mechanical drive instead their performance and capacity dwindles with write loads. We have a 3 year old laptop here that has a SSD and that is operating at 50% health and that as hardly done much in the way of heavy writes. It still works, but I would not say that SSD is in general more reliable, they just die a slow death rather than the mechanical drive heart attack.

    There is a reason why Dell, HP etc only supply enterprise SSD not DT SSD in their servers, if they thought they would be reliable enough they would supply them as there would be significant price advantage.
    The truth is they are not classed as a reliable solution when there are high rates of writes, if they sold them they would have to support them so they are not economically viable in terms of warranty for servers.
    If manufacturers think DT SSD is not economically viable in servers, the chances are they arn't. They predict (and have presumably tested to death) that DT SSD will have short life spans in an enterprise environment.

    Unless you need a high number of IOPS I would recommend 15K SAS with raid 5 (or greater) for file servers. If you want to go SSD (preferably enterprise class) just keep it for the OS on the server (Mirrored) but I would keep the file read write side as SAS. I can't say we have seen a school that needs anything currently greater than 15K SAS for file servers, not storage Vs cost Vs performance anyway.

    SSD is good for fast access reads, low amounts of writes.
    SAS is good for reasonably fast access and heavy read/writes.
    Last edited by ICTLTD; 16th October 2012 at 02:21 PM.

  4. Thanks to ICTLTD from:

    zag (16th October 2012)

  5. #49

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    574
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 115 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Dell, HP etc supply enterprise SSDs because they can charge a premium for them, and they reduce the likelihood of further support requirements. There is no reason they couldn't supply "desktop" SSDs with limited warranties and overprovisioning, apart from the fact that they can't charge such a premium. Taking the write limitation out of the equation:

    Generally speaking (SSD being desktop SATA 3.0 ie Intel 520)

    Write IOPs SSD > Write IOPs 15K SAS
    Read IOPs SSD > Read IOPs 15K SAS
    Write throughput SSD > Write throughput 15K SAS
    Read throughput SSD > Read throughput 15K SAS
    Price for 480GB SSD is only slightly more expensive than a 15K 300GB SAS (20% over provision the SSD to get better endurance and better performance over time)

    Again, it all depends on the actual write figures. I don't think many of us on this forum have a true "heavy" write situation, we're not running constant video editing, we don't have massive oracle databases with constant transactions, we're not talking about saving CCTV images onto it, we're not talking Facebook database servers, we're talking day to day file data... for 12hrs to the day there'll be little to no writes (that big bit overnight when there are no staff or students in school, and those staff working off site won't be doing massive amounts of writes). I have a feeling if we all looked over a period of a few days, we'd see we probably don't hit more than 20GB writes per day (and if you do, then consumer SSD probably isn't for you... unless you over provision).

    But, without knowing write characteristics, no further comment can be made to the specific case.

  6. 2 Thanks to Willott:

    ICTLTD (16th October 2012), zag (16th October 2012)

  7. #50

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    35
    Thank Post
    18
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Willott View Post
    Dell, HP etc supply enterprise SSDs because they can charge a premium for them, and they reduce the likelihood of further support requirements. There is no reason they couldn't supply "desktop" SSDs with limited warranties and overprovisioning, apart from the fact that they can't charge such a premium. Taking the write limitation out of the equation:
    The warranty is limited on Enterprise SSD anyway...(gulp)
    But if you look at the Dell/HP etc price and the cost of enterprise SSD's as a component on the web I do not really think they inflate the price it is the fact they are comfortable they are up to more extreme demands. (also including Enterprise SSD does not increase the warranty cost)

    But the main thing is the performance needed? In reality if you need something faster than 15K SAS, SSD is the only option really. If you don't need faster than 15K SAS I would say 15K SAS is the better proven option and is an enterprise level solution and cheaper in general / long term.

    But there will always be instances where SSD may be the more suitable option, in DT virtualisation for example where the IOPS requirement is higher than storage requirement it may work out cheaper.

    Best thing is to give it a go and see how it works out it may be suitable, but I see the main stumbler as warranty. Over a 5 year life cycle if you do wear out your SSDs due to writes or they start degrading you have to replace them where with SAS you can have them covered under warranty no problem.
    Until SSD has the same warranty covering by manufacturers as SAS it is always going to have a limited amount of risk attached IMHO as you never know when things might change.
    Last edited by ICTLTD; 16th October 2012 at 03:25 PM.

  8. Thanks to ICTLTD from:

    zag (16th October 2012)

  9. #51


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Appropriately timed discussion on slashdot about
    Ask Slashdot: How Do SSDs Die? - Slashdot

  10. Thanks to CyberNerd from:

    ICTLTD (17th October 2012)

  11. #52


    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    51.403651, -0.515458
    Posts
    8,900
    Thank Post
    226
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 1,973 Posts
    Rep Power
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Willott View Post
    Found some possible software, just testing out SSDReady
    If you need something that is much more comprehensive, try hIOmon.




  12. #53
    ijk
    ijk is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    M11/A11/A1307
    Posts
    47
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Rep Power
    12
    I think your money is better spent elsewhere. The performance, longentivity and other merits (price?) of particular SSDs are something to consider but is this a good idea for your school? Would the money be better spent on, for e.g. a system to reliably backup the data you are currently storing?

  13. #54
    zag
    zag is offline
    zag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,765
    Thank Post
    898
    Thanked 417 Times in 350 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12
    Rep Power
    87
    That slashdot article kind of sums up my views as well.

    First time accepted submitter kfsone writes
    "I've experienced, first-hand, some of the ways in which spindle disks die, but either I've yet to see an SSD die or I'm not looking in the right places. Most of my admin-type friends have theories on how an SSD dies but admit none of them has actually seen commercial grade drives die or deteriorate.
    I would think power failure/surges is the biggest risk of a good SSD failing.
    Last edited by zag; 17th October 2012 at 08:35 AM.

  14. Thanks to zag from:

    ICTLTD (17th October 2012)

  15. #55

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,665
    Thank Post
    850
    Thanked 893 Times in 738 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    328
    I'll admit that this thread as altered my attitude/perception towards SSD's some what, but I still think it's a case of the right tool for the right job. I really can't see SSD's, currently, being the right tool for the job in the case of a file serve in a school environment. It's good to know that in an average home environment a good SSD could last 13-14 years worth of writes, but in a school? Got to be a fraction of the time...

    For my money standard hard disks are still where it's at for a file server (preferably 15k SAS). Want more speed? Buy more spindles!

  16. Thanks to tmcd35 from:

    ICTLTD (17th October 2012)

  17. #56

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I'll admit that this thread as altered my attitude/perception towards SSD's some what, but I still think it's a case of the right tool for the right job. I really can't see SSD's, currently, being the right tool for the job in the case of a file serve in a school environment. It's good to know that in an average home environment a good SSD could last 13-14 years worth of writes, but in a school? Got to be a fraction of the time...

    For my money standard hard disks are still where it's at for a file server (preferably 15k SAS). Want more speed? Buy more spindles!
    My attitude is, as you say, right tool for the job. We're having a hybrid solution for our storage needs. Namely 9 SAS drives for 'file storage', and 16 SSDs for virtual machines and profiles.

    True, I likely would never have gone this route if I had chosen all of it, rather than just having to get what was left for me working.

  18. Thanks to localzuk from:

    ICTLTD (17th October 2012)

  19. #57


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Like ICTLTD said "the main thing is the performance needed?"
    probably not In a file server - but SSD's make a dramatic improvement to Terminal Servers. So Like Localzuk we have a happy 'medium' (pun intended) of SSD's, SAS and SATA.

  20. Thanks to CyberNerd from:

    ICTLTD (17th October 2012)

  21. #58

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    574
    Thank Post
    38
    Thanked 115 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    46
    Oh, other thing I forgot to put on previous post:

    Power requirements for SSD < Power requirements for 15K SAS HDD

    If you want higher performance from SAS, add more spindles, which requires more physical space and more power (and more cooling and a noisier system). In some ways, I'm tempted by building several ITX boxes with SSDs and have multiple in a DFSR namespace, low powered boards and SSDs, they're only file servers, so the CPU requirements are fairly insignificant... a lot cheaper than full enterprise solutions, and you get your reliability, stability and in some cases performance from your increase in devices - someone earlier said they ran a 10 server Citrix farm based on desktop components - was this because desktop components were cheaper? Could the farm handle outages better than a farm built of 3 enterprise class devices (which is what you'd probably get for the same cost) and was the performance as good or better?

    For the same cost as an HP server with Enterprise SSD, you could probably build 4 mini itx boxes, with desktop SSD, 2 mini itx (and you'd still be using less power than the HP box, and you can get 2 mini itx in a 1u case), for HP with SAS you'd probably be able to do 2 mini itx with SSDs, much quicker access, less power.

    You may not need the performace, but if you can have the performance for the same cost and put in place other things to assist with reliability and the other issues brought up so far, why not have it? Who's to say that in a year's time, the school will go BYOD requiring access for all students to the file server, with several hundred random IOs per second as students access and write their files? We have a mix of all devices here (SAS HDD, SATA HDD, SSD), the only place I'm looking at buying new drives, I look to either SSD, or for large requirements 7.2k SAS - using SSD/RAM to cache.

    I'm just going to flick back to the FlacheSAN2 device - aparently they consider prosumer SSDs (intel 520) suitable for enterprise environments - you're not after all going to put a device with that spec in a house - so why shouldn't we?

  22. #59

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    35
    Thank Post
    18
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    Like ICTLTD said "the main thing is the performance needed?"
    probably not In a file server - but SSD's make a dramatic improvement to Terminal Servers. So Like Localzuk we have a happy 'medium' (pun intended) of SSD's, SAS and SATA.
    I think you and Localzuk are right with the implementation. SSD is ideal for Terminal services / DT virtualisation, SAS Tier 1 storage, Sata or near line SAS for low performance storage/archive.

    If you use the different technologies to their strengths they all have a level of performance per £ spent where they are winners.

  23. #60

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,684
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,453 Times in 1,899 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    833
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    Like ICTLTD said "the main thing is the performance needed?"
    probably not In a file server - but SSD's make a dramatic improvement to Terminal Servers. So Like Localzuk we have a happy 'medium' (pun intended) of SSD's, SAS and SATA.
    Oh, and we use SATA for our backup server. No need for uber-speed on that!

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 27th May 2011, 08:42 PM
  2. How much to build a new server?
    By TechSupp in forum Hardware
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 18th January 2011, 09:08 AM
  3. New File Server
    By kevin_lane in forum Windows Server 2008
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26th March 2010, 08:40 AM
  4. Quote for new file server
    By altecsole in forum Our Advertisers
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 26th October 2009, 11:03 PM
  5. Getting FC4 file server to pick up new users
    By philjones2000 in forum *nix
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th February 2007, 11:49 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •