Article View: alt.comp.hardware
Article #15Re: SSD --- The reliability of
From: Richard Kofler
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:50
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:50
65 lines
3305 bytes
3305 bytes
Penang schrieb: > Please pardon me if this topic has been discussed before, but as far > as I know about the Flash memory, they have a relatively low limit on > re-write, as compared to hard disk > > In situation where database use in concern, read and write operation > takes place very often > > I know that there are pros and cons in this issue, but basically my > question is this --- How reliable is SSD? Hi Penang, sorry for joining in so late, but I did not have access to usenet the last 4 days. You will find a l o t of useful information at www.storagesearch.com To make it short: A flash disk is not a real SSD. Real SSDs do like 16K IOPS per disk and they are very reliable, very expensive and on the market for like 20+ years. There are 2 types of flash disks: SLC (single layer) - smaller (i.e.upto 64GB), more expensive and faster. MLC (multi layer) - those are bigger (upto 512GB from Toshiba) usually 256 GB now and in the EUR 600 price range for 256 GB. So if a flash disk 'wears out' first thing to happen is, that is gets slower, much slower, that is, and in a short period of time (exactly this is Intel's problem atm). After a long period they finally are so slow, that I think they might never die from wearing out ..... I am not that far in testing, though. What I do in week 9 atm is trying to do harm to the ones I testing. I give them 2800 IOPS writing only and 2 KB blocks only. I have to types: internally having 4 KB blocks or 8 KB blocks. So I write 86400 x 2800 blocks per day for 64 days now. None is slower that at the beginning - so far. If you can throw in a lot of money, have a look at the real speed: Texas Memory Systems www.ramsan.com Or on a much cheaper scale: the 12 slot boxes from www.infortrend.com (in heavy use at CERN, Switzerland). And n e v e r e v e r go RAID5 using a flash disk! Writing the parity there kills a third of the lifetime. www.baarf.com has all on RAID5 and why never it is a good idea. dic_k -- Richard Kofler SOLID STATE EDV Dienstleistungen GmbH Vienna/Austria/Europe
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<baba7$4a85ce01$547019ee$11516@news.chello.at>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed02.chello.at!news.chello.at.POSTED!not-for-mailReferences:
<18466f6d-fc6f-4b26-a73a-bb27fc9e697c@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Thread: b1cbc11f53,d271ff33e869b9ea X-Google-Attributes: gidb1cbc11f53,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed02.chello.at!news.chello.at.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:50:17 +0200 From: Richard Kofler <richard.kofler@chello.at> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware,24hoursupport.helpdesk,comp.databases.informix Subject: Re: SSD --- The reliability of References: <18466f6d-fc6f-4b26-a73a-bb27fc9e697c@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <18466f6d-fc6f-4b26-a73a-bb27fc9e697c@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <baba7$4a85ce01$547019ee$11516@news.chello.at> X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.at Organization: chello.at Lines: 65 NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.112.25.238 (84.112.25.238) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:50:09 +0200 X-Trace: baba74a85ce01f1d5bc4b11516