Poll: 2 SSDs or 1 Extra HDD

+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
Hardware Thread, SSD vs HDD For A Servers Primary Boot Drive in Technical; Currently speccing up 2 HP ML 110s for a Primary school. Plan on having one RAID Mirror for the OS ...
  1. #1

    SYSMAN_MK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,978
    Thank Post
    484
    Thanked 1,330 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    425

    SSD vs HDD For A Servers Primary Boot Drive

    Currently speccing up 2 HP ML 110s for a Primary school. Plan on having one RAID Mirror for the OS and one another for data. Now an extra 250GB HP drive for the boot volume is around 100.00 which is the price of a 60GB OCZ Vertex 3. So would you just get the standard HDD for 100.00 or spend the extra on 2 SSDs?

    Cheers

  2. #2

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,467
    Thank Post
    750
    Thanked 1,210 Times in 852 Posts
    Blog Entries
    45
    Rep Power
    533
    The price gouging on HP hard drives is borderline criminal...

    In all honesty, though, how often will that server be accessing random files from that array? It probably won't be a significant upgrade, so go with the cheapest, and only opt for SSDs if its the same cost. My tuppence, anywho.

  3. Thanks to sonofsanta from:

    SYSMAN_MK (7th July 2011)

  4. #3
    jamesfed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    2,145
    Thank Post
    127
    Thanked 326 Times in 275 Posts
    Rep Power
    81
    To be honist unless they are running some kind of high read/write application on the servers (like SIMS/SQL) then the SSD would just be a waste of money.
    We've got a ML110 in our Primary School with 2x1TB SATA drives and we haven't been able to max them out in anything that they use (even imaging 20 machines at once didn't tax the drives much).

    If you want maybe get the P212 RAID controler and with the 256Mb of cache for a little bit of a boost but other than that a SSD is overkill.

  5. Thanks to jamesfed from:

    SYSMAN_MK (7th July 2011)

  6. #4

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,574
    Thank Post
    869
    Thanked 1,293 Times in 786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    436
    For the OS drive tbh I wouldnt go SSD, it wont make much diff and the money is better spent on RAM tbh.

  7. Thanks to ZeroHour from:

    SYSMAN_MK (7th July 2011)

  8. #5

    john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,439
    Thank Post
    1,468
    Thanked 1,035 Times in 908 Posts
    Rep Power
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroHour View Post
    For the OS drive tbh I wouldnt go SSD, it wont make much diff and the money is better spent on RAM tbh.
    Completely agree with that one How about a compromise, I have a set of WD Raptor drives in one Primary Server for the OS to give ita bit of a boost without being criminal maybe worth looking at?

  9. Thanks to john from:

    SYSMAN_MK (9th July 2011)

  10. #6

    ZeroHour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Posts
    5,574
    Thank Post
    869
    Thanked 1,293 Times in 786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    436
    Quote Originally Posted by john View Post
    Completely agree with that one How about a compromise, I have a set of WD Raptor drives in one Primary Server for the OS to give ita bit of a boost without being criminal maybe worth looking at?
    Raptors are mega expensive btw, samsung do some good fast drives though for sane prices.

  11. #7

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    11,101
    Thank Post
    1,430
    Thanked 1,693 Times in 1,266 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    364
    I personally would buy some standard SAS HDDs for the OS and normal SATA hdds for the server data etc and additional RAM for the server.

  12. #8

    john's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,439
    Thank Post
    1,468
    Thanked 1,035 Times in 908 Posts
    Rep Power
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroHour View Post
    Raptors are mega expensive btw, samsung do some good fast drives though for sane prices.
    I've never found them to be that expensive for the space v performance. Although your are right in reviews some Samsung have caught up but most of my paperweights at work are Samsung drives....

  13. #9

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,691
    Thank Post
    824
    Thanked 2,570 Times in 2,187 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    731
    It's a server reliability over speed and SSDs have a nasty habbit of killing themselves quickly, irreversably and without warning, RAID1 may help but I still wouldn't trust it as far as I could throw it and HPs are heavy.

  14. #10

    synaesthesia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    5,487
    Thank Post
    527
    Thanked 876 Times in 683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    15
    Rep Power
    438
    I'm not so sure, 35 will get you an intel 30gb unit which will be absolutely more than enough for a server OS drive. As for killing themselves quickly - unfortunately true with some brands but 1. backups! 2. backups! 3. the worst SSD's are far more reliable than anything with a Maxtor label on

    Then again I have to wonder; would there be much point? Boot time - how often do you reboot the server? General OS performance - your boot drive will (I hope!) just be doing Windows tasks - just about most of what a server will (or should!) be doing won't be on your boot drive, like page files, AD/sysvol information etc.

    Makes it a little pointless IMO.

    On a correctly set up server I think I'd be happier with an SAS or enterprise grade SATA drive, ideally in RAID1 even if it's the onboard fakeraid as the boot drive, and investing in something decent for your work drives and high throughput data storage.

    Excuse this post - it's more me thinking out loud. As a result, I'd happily shoot anyone that thinks performance on a server OS drive is needed; because unless I'm missing something, that means your server is set up wrong/badly
    Last edited by synaesthesia; 8th July 2011 at 06:32 PM.

  15. Thanks to synaesthesia from:

    SYSMAN_MK (9th July 2011)

  16. #11

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,691
    Thank Post
    824
    Thanked 2,570 Times in 2,187 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by synaesthesia View Post
    the worst SSD's are far more reliable than anything with a Maxtor label on
    That's an unfair comparison, anything with a Maxtor label on it is not actually a hard drive, its a poorly labeled and marketed random number genterator.

  17. #12
    PeterW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    745
    Thank Post
    42
    Thanked 65 Times in 60 Posts
    Rep Power
    31
    far more reliable than anything with a Maxtor label on
    Hmm a drive with a maxtor label on it could be maxtor,seagate or quantum

  18. #13

    SYSMAN_MK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,978
    Thank Post
    484
    Thanked 1,330 Times in 721 Posts
    Rep Power
    425
    Cheers for the views guys. Standard HDD it is.

    So on that note any recommendations on a RIAD contoller that would be an improvment over the MLs onboard, but still in keeping with the MLs pricing

  19. #14

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,691
    Thank Post
    824
    Thanked 2,570 Times in 2,187 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by SYSMAN_MK View Post
    Cheers for the views guys. Standard HDD it is.

    So on that note any recommendations on a RIAD contoller that would be an improvment over the MLs onboard, but still in keeping with the MLs pricing
    TBH to get a real improvement in speed and importantly reliability you are probably better off looking at a slightly higher spec base server with an integrated solution. Most of the controllers that are around the lower pricepoint will give you slightly better performance than the onboard but reliability wise leave everything to be desired.

  20. #15
    Cools's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bedfordshire
    Posts
    498
    Thank Post
    24
    Thanked 62 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    24
    HP E200 Raid controler with 256mb is a wast of time with sata drives.. it runs at 1.5gb/s a sec with sas you get 3gb/s
    and there so slow.. i would get a PCIE card 4 port that will take SATA3 and get some drives SSD is over kill unless your vm-ing.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [For Sale] Icy Dock MB982IP-1S Full Metal 2.5" to 3.5" SAS & SATA HDD & SSD Converter
    By mac_shinobi in forum Classified Adverts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th June 2011, 08:00 PM
  2. Dell wont boot from anything, except HDD
    By Hightower in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3rd March 2011, 10:13 AM
  3. Running SIMS server on an SSD drive?
    By zag in forum MIS Systems
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 4th November 2009, 10:06 AM
  4. SSD drives in servers
    By zag in forum Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 13th October 2009, 08:50 AM
  5. [Video] 24 Drive SSD RAID Array - Insane!
    By maniac in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11th September 2009, 02:55 PM

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
  •