Solved

SSD Raid 5 Trim Support? Configuration? Server 2008

Posted on 2010-09-22
65
1,621 Views
Last Modified: 2012-05-10
Looking to build another 2008 terminal server. Last time I used 10k raptor drives, this time I want to try SSD's unless there is some glaring issue I'm not aware of. It seems Server 2008 R2 supports Trim. I haven't used SSDs yet so I'm unsure of how to configure an OS to use them as efficiently as possible. I'm looking at doing 6 or so of them in a Raid 5. I think I'd also like to use a Raid card (is it possible to get a good inexpensive one?).
0
Comment
Question by:earth-traveler
  • 19
  • 16
  • 10
  • +4
65 Comments
 
LVL 47

Accepted Solution

by:
dlethe earned 125 total points
ID: 33738824
if you want to use SSDs and RAID efficiently, then use software based raid1.  a decent RAID5 controller that won't destroy your performance will set you back over $1000.  (and still you will have a big write penalty)

0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33739026
Ok, after doing a little more checking, I think I'm looking at an Asus board with an onboard raid controller. Here's a link to someone using 6 older, slower ssd's with onboard raid 5 and pulling average read speeds of 500mb. I'm pretty sure that's sufficient for what I'm looking for. Then I just need another card with a handful more sata ports so I can hook up some larger normal drives for backups and the heavy storage. What are you thoughts there?
0
 
LVL 8

Assisted Solution

by:devinnoel
devinnoel earned 125 total points
ID: 33739543
Onboard RAID is usually pretty anemic for performance, especially with RAID 5. You are not going to be able to combine a RAID array between the on-board controller and an external controller. In the RAID controller world, you get what you pay for, a nice one will be expensive.

Get a good RAID controller & hook all your drives up to that, at least for you data storage array. You probably want to keep you OS drive separate from you data array.

Software RAID use to be slit your wrist bad, these days it just kind of sucks. Cheap (and integrated) RAID controllers are actually mostly software. All the parity calculations are done via the driver software, not dedicated hardware you get in the expensive nice RAID controllers.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33739606
I strongly disagree with your assessment of software-based RAID.  This is the mechanism which the vast majority of NAS & SAN appliance manufacturers use, let alone nearly 100% of the people who use Solaris as an O/S.    By the way, native SSD support is supported in Solaris's ZFS, so you can create a RAID pool that contains BOTH mechanical HDDs for data, and one or more SSDs for caching and the most I/O intensive part of the pool.  

Where software-based RAID is problematic, if it is used in Windows and you want to boot from it.  Many PCs just aren't hardened for path/device failure.

0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33740707
Most of my experience has been in the windows realm...

I've spent quite some time trying to futility repair windows software RAID arrays when things go bad over the years. I've had marginally more sucess with the very cheap or integrated raid controllers, but not much. They are often so tempermental with drivers & locked in to a particular model of card, you can't recover the data off the good drive when something fails.

As far as the NAS/SAN arena, the whole appliance is built just for storage & nothing else, so it's really not like "software raid". On a PC or something with software raid, you expect to use the CPU for other things than just storage. On a SAN/NAS you expect the CPU to do mostly storage stuff.

ZFS does kick ass, it's incompatible with our backup software & my Solaris guy doesn't like it, so we don't use it at my site. I was pushing to use it though.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33741084
You have a solaris guy that doesn't like ZFS?!!  That borders on unbelievable, and I would really force his hand to explain why he "doesn't like it".  Come on, a file system that lets you configure SSD into a pool for built-in I/O turbocharging, with data compression, de-dup, and RAIDZ2 (equivalent to RAID6), that lets you expand online as necessary & take snapshots?

Why ZFS is incompatible with any backup software escapes me.  It takes seconds to set up a pool as iSCSI, or SMB/CIFS, or even use NFS to system that is running the software.  I'm not buying the incompatibility argument, seems your solaris guy just isn't up on this.  
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33744135
I browsed newegg briefly for raid cards, this being the first time I've really shopped for one. What I don't understand is that many of the cards have only a few sata ports or no ports at all. Bottom line, I need raid 5 for redundancy, I need speed, I need places to plug drives in. I need to spend very little money:) What do I do? This is a very small business, we've gone through 3 terminal servers so far with great results, just upgrading hardware as we grow. We're still small enough and low budget enough that we aren't using server motherboards/procs etc. My most recent server is a q6600, 8gb ram, 4 raptors in raid 5, 2 500gb drives in raid 1 for backups, 1 terabyte drive for mass unimportant storage.

I want to go to an amd 6 core, 16gb ram, ssd drives with larger standard drives for storage and backups.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33744212
With those constraints, the only possible thing you can do is Solaris + ZFS.  Period.  End of discussion.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33744241
That's not exactly thinking outside the box. Somehow I've done it three times before. Why is the fourth time impossible?
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33744346
ZFS will let you create a hybrid RAID5/6 (RAIDZ/RAIDZ2) device that combines both SSD & mechanical hard drives, on different non-RAID controllers, if you wish and it works quite well, and is extremely fast.  You've done this 3 times before?  You've done something, but not that, and certainly you have not had this level of data integrity and performance.   Fast, low-cost hardware-based RAID5 controller just doesn't exist.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33744429
My performance is definitely an issue here. We've never had any issues with data integrity but I also don't want to have any issues. The only info I have on ZFS is what I just pulled off wikipedia. Is it possible to use with MS Server 2008? What I don't understand is if it needs to be setup under Solaris and if so, how that would work with MS server.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33744572
You run OpenSolaris of Solaris on a PC, and let it be the server.  It can certainly export CIFS/SMB directories, NFS, and even iSCSI.  A file server is a file server, and the underlying O/S really shouldn't matter ... but do you need an Application server instead?   Obviously an application server needs to be a certain O/S to run the applications.  So If you need an application server, can you have it get the data from the solaris-based file server is the question.

0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33744617
We us server 2008 to run terminal services, all our software is run on server 2008 desktops. We don't have anything that's just a file server.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33744669
Then just buy a pair of SSDs, let the Win2K8 box mirror them with software, and use that for speed, then go with your cheap RAID controller.   Use the RAID1 as best as possible, move database index files, logs, anything i/O intensive there as best as you can.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33745958
Ya, my UNIX guy is.... Well most IT guys like keeping up with the new technology... As far as the backup software, it's block level backup software, not file level, which causes some issues working at a lower level.

If your a Windows shop, I would not look at Solaris & ZFS. It may be a superior technology, but if you can't support it easily, it will not be the best solution to your problem.

You may want to look at a NAS appliance of some sorts if you are looking for just storage. I've had good luck with NetApps, they are easy to use & configure.

Back to your original question... I'm not completely sure, but last I heard, RAID & TRIM were not compatible. They may have fixed that, but I kind of doubt it.

Unless you are going to be spending good money on a RAID controller,  RAID 5 will be a decent performance hit. It's one of those  "Fast-Good-Cheap, pick 2" scenarios. Well, that's the case for storage in general
 
Everybody wants to do something as cheap as possible, but it's not always possible to get something fast & reliable for cheap.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33746096
Maybe I should clarify cheap, I've got probably 2-2.5k in other hardware, I was hoping if I had to buy a sata or raid controller that it'd only be a couple hundred or less. Some of the better ones appeared to be no less than 600 up  to several thousand. So far we've existed on integrated motherboard raid controllers so spending that much just for a raid controller is a big jump over what we've done in the past. Thanks for mentioning th trim issue though, that was one of my main issues for starting this thread. It seems ssd's lose a lot of their performance over time without proper maintanence (trim, garbage collection), I don't want to pay the ssd premium if they won't maintain their performance boost. I also don't really want to use sas drives as they have the same premium as ssd but without the performance of a properly functioning ssd.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33746218
A cheap $100ish RAID controller will work, but it won't be nearly as fast or as robust as a "good" one.

With a $1kish HP or Dell RAID controller (Primary server vendors I've used, not to knock Adaptec or other good add on RAID controllers) you get minimal performance degradation from RAID 5 and you can shuffle drives around, hot swap and practically try to break the RAID arrays. Everything just stays working & the OS never even really knows.

RAID fundamentally "breaks" the techniques that are commonly used to keep SSD's clean by scattering data across multiple disks. Some garbage collection is done by writing a file full of 0's or 1's that is just smaller than all the free space on the disk. The TRIM stuff relies on the OS marking sectors as ready to be cleaned. the RAID controllers whole job is to hide disk level stuff from the OS so the OS sees a volume rather than individual disks.

A decently large RAID array should end up being faster than a SSD anyway, and you'll get a lot more storage for your buck than SSD's. The more disks you have in an array (with a decent RAID controller) the faster the whole array gets, as you will be splitting a file up & writing it to multiple drives at the same time instead of just one.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33746314
Yup, if you are not prepared to spend around $1000 for a controller that has battery backup, dedicated CPU, ECC memory, then don't bother.  If you could do a SQL search on EE database for people who lost all or part of their data, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of it came from people who bought such controllers.  You absolutely get what you pay for.

Plus, most of the more expensive controllers are only qualified on enterprise class SATA and/or SAS/SCSI/FC disks.  ZFS will work just fine on desktop class SATA drives, because of the write commits, an d added checkpoints and redundancy it adds.  So read up on those $600+ controllers, and see that HP, DELL, Intel, and others ONLY qualify the more expensive disks (which have additional ECC, firmware mods, and error recovery firmware -- google TLER for more info).


You might read this also
 http://www.experts-exchange.com/Storage/Misc/A_2757-Disk-drive-reliability-overview.html
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33746330
I understand the what you're saying about the raids, my plan was to run 6 x ssd's in a raid 5. I'm glad to know that Trim will not work on a raid array. My best best in that case is probably to buy 6 sas discs and run those instead. It'll still be way faster than my 4 x 74gb raptors. So what do I do, buy something like this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816117171&cm_re=sas_controller-_-16-117-171-_-Product

and pair it with something like this to hook the drives up to?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816103194&cm_re=sas_controller-_-16-103-194-_-Product

If most controllers only have one or two ports, I'm assuming people are using something like that cable in the second link to connect their drives?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33746367
as to dlethe's comment, the backup system doesn't have to be perfect. I'm just running the raid for better performance, not so much the data protection, I have nightly backups that do full OS backups to the Raid 1 and also nightly backups that do critical files to an online backup service. If the OS crashes or raid fails, I should be able to restore it from the backups on the raid 1, if that fails as well, I can pull all critical files off our web service and rebuild the server from scratch.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33746439
Trim will work fine on a ZFS-based RAID array. :)
Plus, actually it will work on a certain RAID controller for an unnamed RAID appliance vendor, because I wrote it .. but not gonna tell you about who it is, and not going to likely release such a product to end-users for other operating systems, but it can be done.

I can not recommend any of those controllers w/o you first contacting your SSD vendor and seeing what they qualify.  There are a heck of a lot of issues with SSDs and SAS controllers, especially SAS_2 controllers. Too many to mention from engineering perspective, so just find your SSD vendor first, see what they have tested, and what they recommend.  The SSD vendor tests the controller, not the other way around, so choose your SSD first.  (But will also say RAID5 on a budget controller like that will leave at a minimum 300% of performance on the table for a high-end SSD).

0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33746521
If it's not going to be easy to get trim or garbage collection working, I'm thinking just use sas, I was researching the speed of the raptor drives and they are way slow compared to the more recent sas. I just want reasonable performance gains. I think I can get that with sas.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33747644
If you just  want performance, RAID 1 & 5 are not the way to go.

RAID 0 - Stripes data across 2 or more drives. Striping causes significantly improved performance. However any 1 of the disks failing will wipe out the entire array, the likelihood of this happening goes up exponentially with the number of disks added to the array.

RAID 1 - Mirroring, uses double the number of disks to store data for increased fault tolerance. In theory read speed & throughput could be doubled if it split the reads between the mirrored disks, but I'm not sure this is actually ever done in practice.

RAID 5 - Striping with parity requires 3 or more disks. It Stripes data like RAID 0, but also calculates parity information & stores it across all 3 disks. This parity information plus the data on the remaining disks can rebuild any missing data in the event of a failed disk. Calculating that parity information is REALLY processor intensive, unless you have a very nice RAID card it will noticeably slow the system down, it will still slow the system down compared to the other RAID types even with an expensive RAID card.

If you can afford the downtime in the event of a disk failure and only really care about speed, you should be looking at RAID 0. Personally even on systems that I don't care about reliability & up-time on I use a fault tolerant RAID setup, but that's my outlook.

0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33747831
RAID1 - "... in theory read speed & throughput could be doubled if split ... but I'm not sure this is actually ever done in practice"
 - If you have a decent RAID controller and SAS or FC disks, then it is probably being done right now.  If you have software-based RAID and configure multi-pathing, then it is done now on each physical drive.  As for taking advantage of disk queue on individual disks to balance load, then this has been the norm form premium controllers, and software-based RAID on most UNIX-based variants for years.

RAID1 is also best possible write performance and read performance if you need IOPs instead of throughput.  Your response (devinnoel) is strictly from perspective of throughput, and also actually quite dated.  Unless your CPU is measured in MhZ instead of GHz, then XOR parity calculations are statistically insignificant.  The only place where you want to have a dedicated controller to deal with performance offload is when you have an embedded encryption engine in controller, and don't want to tie up your host processor(s) with that.  But even software-based encryption on multi-core systems can readily perform this work.

Also, in this day & age, with 3TB disks for under $200, you have to be nuts not go just go with RAID6.  A RAID5 rebuild on a few multi-TB disks will take days if offline, could take a week if you do it online.

Now above all has to do with IO properties of mechanical disks.  With SSDs, particularly SATA SSDs, performance metrics are most dependent on your controller's architecture.   You will simply not find a RAID controller under $1000 that won't be a big bottleneck unless you have ancient SSDs.

0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33748303
I haven't done any benchmarks myself recently, just going on past experiences and the standard RAID definitions.

I tend to mirror OS drives & use RAID 5/6 for data drives & leave it at that. Or more recently these days just use my NetApp.

More important to me on the low end RAID controllers & older Windows software RAID than the mediocer performance has been all the problems I've seen trying to rebuild a RAID array after a failed disk.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33748354
I would never run raid 0 for my servers. Raid 5 should give a performance boost over single disks which is why I use it. I don't need a whole lot of storage space, right now my 4 disk raid 5 is 138 usable in windows, I've still got 85 gb free. What I'm doing requires more ram, more cpu power and less bottlenecking on the hard drives. I don't wan to run the risk of downtime by using a raid 0. I'm starting year 6 of this setup and we've never been down. (Across the 3 servers). We have no redundancy server wise and everything we do runs on these servers so while I'll take the risk of a raid 5 failing, I won't take the extra risk of a raid 0 failing. I've rebuilt the raid 5 several times while using it and it's usually taken 3-4 hours. I meant to post this link above and apparently forgot to put it in. Here's a guy using onboard raid 5 with ssd's and getting 500mb avg read. That's way above what I can get right now. I'd be more than happy with that for our current setup. That's why I think that even though an onboard raid controller might not be able to keep up with a high end aftermarket one, It'll keep up well enough for what I currently need.

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=577100
0
 
LVL 1

Assisted Solution

by:ted_sin
ted_sin earned 125 total points
ID: 33762161
I've read all the posts here and nobody mentions the write performance....raid 5 fails at write performance if your controller is a cheap onboard one with no onboard memory. You will get good read speed but will loose alot at write and rebuild. On my onboard intel controller it took me 25h to rebuild my raid 5 array on 2TB....thats slow :)

if write speed is no issue then go for the cheap onboard controller.
0
 
LVL 1

Assisted Solution

by:OCTeamDenmark
OCTeamDenmark earned 125 total points
ID: 33765098
The degrade in performance will still be acceptable when you compare to SAS drives.

What are the usage of these drives?

Multi purpose ?

0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33769701
This is a terminal server, people are running programs. Very little write performance is needed. It will have less than 100gb of actual used storage. That's why I was thinking of using 6 x 60gb ssd drives in raid 5. Would I lose too much of the speed of ssd's without trim or garbage collection?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33770016
earth-traveler:

SSD´s are amazing, not everybody understands this, because one has to experiance it to fell and understand how big a limitation disks are these days.

Development of Harddrives in therms of IO has been 10-15% over the last 2 decades. And one canot understeimate the advantages of an SSD.

#Things to consider
Dont buy a cheap lowend SSD, some of them from less respected manufactorers can die easyly, some degrade fast and so on.

The degrade will not be that fast, 1-3 years depending on the specific version you buy.

Raid 5 is always a very Processor heavy mode, tough and slow if your raid controller cant handle it.
Last time I tried it out was with 36 Gb 16 Mb cach Raptor disks, and performance was very bad.

If you have not already bougth those 6 drives, go with 2 x 120 or 2x 160 Gb drives in Raid 1.

#Cheaper trick
Buy 2 x 32 or 2 x 64/80 gb disks, raid 1.
have 2 normal disks in raid 1 as storrage.

If you have already bougth then investigate if you server can do "RAID 1+0:"


"RAID 1+0: mirrored sets in a striped set (minimum two disks but more commonly four disks to take advantage of speed benefits; even number of disks) provides fault tolerance and improved performance but increases complexity.
The key difference from RAID 0+1 is that RAID 1+0 creates a striped set from a series of mirrored drives. In a failed disk situation, RAID 1+0 performs better because all the remaining disks continue to be used. The array can sustain multiple drive losses so long as no mirror loses all its drives."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID

##########
What server will you be using? Or at least just what controller does it have?
AMD end user products have a slower storrage controller than intel end user products.
      I cant say anything in regards to AMD servers.
Are you certain on the 100 Gb storrage need?
What backup system do you have ?

0
How to run any project with ease

Manage projects of all sizes how you want. Great for personal to-do lists, project milestones, team priorities and launch plans.
- Combine task lists, docs, spreadsheets, and chat in one
- View and edit from mobile/offline
- Cut down on emails

 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33770086
Do you have any existing terminal servers? How hard do they get hit compared to the expected usage of the new one? Personally I wouldn't go for SSD's on a server just yet, especially cheaper ones. SSD's just don't have the track record  in the enterprise market that spinning platters do, especially cheaper ones. Most "enterprise" class SSD's are at least 3+ times the cost of consumer SSD's.

Even ignoring the whole TRIM issue, you can probably build a spinning platter array for the same price or cheaper than a SSD array of the same performance.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33770122
And for what it's worth, I have a 256gb Intel G2 SSD disk in my personal workstation at home. It is nice, and noticeably faster in certain areas. I'm not 100% sold on the performance per $ though. Not sure if I'd get it again if I could go back and do it over again, but as performance per $ keeps dropping I'm pretty sure I'll get another SSD as my OS drive in my next PC.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33770195
devinnoel:
I could understand alot of your arguments.

But the last one about performance of a SSD array vs Standard disks just dosent stand...

A few links as to server usage can be found here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=248259

0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33770219
Another good link, at least if you select the X25-M :)

5 years random writes
35 TB total
20GB/Day


http://blog.mpecsinc.ca/2010/05/intel-ssd-expected-lifetime-and-gross.html
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33779757
So I think I think the consensus is run a couple of high speed ssd's in raid 1 or do something in raid 0 +1. I don't think most mobo's support 0+1 onboard so I'd probably just go with raid 1. Would trim work by default on Raid 1?
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 33779864
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/03/23/intel-releases-trim-for-raid/1

It looks like it might finally be available on some gear. If or your integrated RAID controller supports it is another matter though. It looks like some Intel motherboards do.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33780138
If you have a hardware-based RAID controller, then no.  Software-based RAID is what you want to do, and it will work
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33780162
devinnoel: That was a very largely misunderstood erterpitation on intels new drivers, a small txt file stating support for SSD disk trim even though the raid controller has configured 1 set of raid.

So bacicly what intel was saying: we now support trimm for single disks event though you also have configured raid on your storrage controller.

I know because I run a website about overclocking and this was a VERY big storry back then....

And a quote from a comment to the article...

XeroNXS 23rd March 2010, 19:21
Sadly the news is not correct.

This is from Intel
Quote:

It will support TRIM with SSDs in an AHCI configuration, or with the RAID controller enabled and the SSD is used as a pass through device. An example of this use case is for users that want to use the SSD as a boot drive but still be able to RAID multiple HDDs together to allow for large protect data storage – a great use for the home theater PC. TRIM support for SSDs in a RAID configuration is under investigation and is not included in Intel® RST 9.6.

So it only works with a single SSD in AHCI or RAID mode.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33780203
If the SSD is set as a pass-through device, then how can it be part of a hardware-based RAID set?  The whole point of a pass-through device, is that the operating system sees the individual disk, as-is, and the RAID controller just passes all I/O through without getting in the way.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33780319
To finish this one you migth need some information on software raid.

http://www.bauer-power.net/2009/07/fun-with-software-raid-on-windows.html

But as far as I can read, it would not be a good solution if the server is stored remotely, if a crash happens it migth not change to the second disk when trying to boot.

Here is a guy that has some problems with his raid 1,
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/winserverfiles/thread/3de63df3-7db4-4fba-b5ef-f9d0177c3a10
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33780387
dlethe:
"If the SSD is set as a pass-through device, then how can it be part of a hardware-based RAID set?  The whole point of a pass-through device, is that the operating system sees the individual disk, as-is, and the RAID controller just passes all I/O through without getting in the way."

Damm I could use come quote options on this forum :(

You are asking why intel had problems with it ?

Well I cant explain the technical problems of this, only intel can.
But the solved it in that driver back in April.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33781182
Yuck, not even going to think about what they had to do, other than that they obviously did a poor job of pass-through, and clean up the mess with the driver.  Update drivers and/or firmware, then you'll probably break things, and good luck trying to do TRIM.  Whenever you clean things up with the driver you have to worry about software that uses the IOCTL_SCSI_PASS_THROUGH getting incomplete or incorrect execution of embedded ATA commands, error codes, or even offsets.  

My advice, avoid any product that cleans up an I/O mess with drivers.

0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33781420
dlethe:
Your recommendation is to disregard all the great things about SSDs ?

The last 3 months finnaly some danish companies woke up, decreasing search times at Novo Nordic from 40 to 6 sek, articles like that are hard to disregard.

BTW I would like to know who here in this thread has used an SSD before :D ?

Use google translate :
Decreased seek times from 40 - 8
http://www.version2.dk/artikel/16140-saadan-skar-novozymes-soegetiden-fra-40-til-8-sekunder-med-25-ssd-diske
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33782733
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foremay-Unleashes-SATA-6-0-Gbps-SSDs-158336.shtml

single ssd reaching 450/350mb read/write. That'd be good enough, in raid 1 I think. It seems like trim commands should logically work through a raid 1. If you have two identical drives and Windows see's it as once drive, it seems like each trim command would apply to both drives. Why does it have to be such a PITA!
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33782931
Nobody is shipping a SATA-3 SSD today, except as an engineering sample.  This product is not GA.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 33783191
The product I listed above was just announced today so your right it's not out yet, below is a link to sata 3 drives on newegg that are available now.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100008120+600038519&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=636&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 33783518
you're right. had been thinking SAS SSD which is not shipping except to engineering, and what you do get is too buggy to test.  thxfor catching this.  note lots of incompatibility issues with the  SSDs, especially on any kind of RAID, and your architecture could very well drop performance to SATA2 speeds. Get moneyback guarantee
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 33792719
The only thing im missing is I understood that it had to be cheap?

And now you are looking at SATA 3 drives ?

What do you want to spend ? What is the space you are looking for ?
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:Gerald Connolly
ID: 34208072
OCTeamDenmark

Have you been living in a different universe to me?.

"Development of Harddrives in therms of IO has been 10-15% over the last 2 decades. And one canot understeimate the advantages of an SSD."

Back in the early 90's we were looking at:
what 1-2GB capacities.
IOPS in the 30-50 range
spiral read rates of 70MB/s
Speeds of 5400 rpm maybe 7600

Now we have
2TB capacities   (x2000)
IOPS in the 200's   (x3)
spiral read rates over 300MB/s    (>x4)
speeds of 15K rpm (>x2)





0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 34208116
maybe he meant 10-15% per year :)
What is it ... if automobiles progressed like disk/computer technology then you could get a car that gets 10,000 MPG, costs $20, and could drive from one coast to another in under an hour?


0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 34208480
anyone seen a raid controller that can do raid 1 with trim yet? I haven't made a move on this server yet, waiting for something to surface.

I was reading down through the previous posts, someone earlier said a sas array would be cheaper with the same performance as a ssd array, I think that's wrong. Sas drives costs as much as ssd and can't touch the speed so I don't know how that logically makes sense.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 34413656
I object to deleting. His question was answered in depth, the answer is that what he wants isn't available.
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 34413887
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Hardware/Servers/Q_26492022.html#33738824 addresses the non-availability of an inexpensive RAID controller, as well as the fact that he would have to use software-based RAID to obtain performance, but so many other experts chimed in so no problem splitting points.
0
 
LVL 8

Expert Comment

by:devinnoel
ID: 34414245
Multiple experts  provide as up to date answers as possible with current products.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:OCTeamDenmark
ID: 34415168
I run raid 0 at work on an Kontron KT780.
Its not a server grade board, and its been running for 6 months now.

I cant detect or bench my way to any performance loss.

This is on VERY cheap 32Gb A-Data SSD drives...

Alot of enterprise servers run Raid with SSD´s these days, the fear of not having TRIM or garbage collection is way overrated.

What do you have to lose ;)
Buy and power that baby up ;)
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:earth-traveler
ID: 34417064
I bought some new parts and will be building something shortly. 2 x xeon quad core, 24gb ram, ssd's in raid 1. Alias 99, can you just divvy up the points? I did get good information from the thread.
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:Gerald Connolly
ID: 34419585
Alias99

this is definately option 3) split it across all the expert commentators:-

dlethe
earth-traveler
devinnoel
ted_sin
OCTeamDenm...

  and of course

connollyg
0
 
LVL 16

Expert Comment

by:Gerald Connolly
ID: 34430883
0
 

Expert Comment

by:jonf805
ID: 35335751
I would suggest going with an Adaptec MaxIq controller / SSD accelerator. Similar to what ZFS accomplishes with SSD acceleration but allows your (RAID1 or 5/6) array to be Inexpensive Mechanical disks. The SSD is used to cache frequently used files so your frequent files are accelerated to the speed of the Intel SSD. Loss of the SSD does not affect your data.

You can also add additional SSD's to the MaxIq controller to further increase acceleration and cache size.  
0
 

Expert Comment

by:jonf805
ID: 35335843
As a follow up to my post, here's a tomshardware review of the Adaptec MaxIq technology. You can see as much as 8x performance increase compared to non accelerated. This falls in line with the SSD vs Mechanical performance ratings.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/maxiq-ssd-cache,2511.html
0
 
LVL 47

Expert Comment

by:dlethe
ID: 35335938
I'm not a big fan of it, for real-world use.  It won't help much with throughput as it is limited to SAS-1/SATA-2 speeds of 3Gbits/second.  SAS-2 is dual-ported 6Gbits/sec and the Adaptec product (unless something changed) only helps with read traffic.

No redundancy either.

Now as a "lazyman" solution for people who want  a speed bump and are willing to spend a premium for a speed bump and are willing to take a huge hit in event the SSD dies, then go for it.
But it would cost less money and you would not take a hit in event the SSD failed, and you would get at least twice as much throughput and in some cases even higher IOPS if you just put in either 1 or 2 SSDs in the host, made a RAID1 out of it, and just moved your most IOPs intense things like index & scratch table space to the SSDs.

Plus you would be able to keep whatever controller you want.  YOu also can NOT use cheap desktop consumer disks with that product. You still need consumer class drives or you risk your data.  RAID 6 support??

But I am old school, I like control & to squeeze all I can get.  the product does have a place , so IMO buy it if you have server class disks, databases that get pounded at times, and don't want to have to move things around or manage it as much.
0

Featured Post

How your wiki can always stay up-to-date

Quip doubles as a “living” wiki and a project management tool that evolves with your organization. As you finish projects in Quip, the work remains, easily accessible to all team members, new and old.
- Increase transparency
- Onboard new hires faster
- Access from mobile/offline

Join & Write a Comment

Every server (virtual or physical) needs a console: and the console can be provided through hardware directly connected, software for remote connections, local connections, through a KVM, etc. This document explains the different types of consol…
Moving your enterprise fax infrastructure from in-house fax machines and servers to the cloud makes sense — from both an efficiency and productivity standpoint. But does migrating to a cloud fax solution mean you will no longer be able to send or re…
This video teaches viewers how to encrypt an external drive that requires a password to read and edit the drive. All tasks are done in Disk Utility. Plug in the external drive you wish to encrypt: Make sure all previous data on the drive has been …
This tutorial will walk an individual through the process of installing the necessary services and then configuring a Windows Server 2012 system as an iSCSI target. To install the necessary roles, go to Server Manager, and select Add Roles and Featu…

757 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

21 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now