On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 11:52 +0200, Federico Fissore wrote: > we are probably running out of topic here, but for the record, there is > also someone lamenting about ssd
I find all of this highly on-topic. SSD reliability is an important issue. We use customer-grade SSDs (Intel 510 were the latest ones bought) in our servers as we see no point in enterprise-grade reliability when we are mirroring machines. > http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html > > the underlying point is correct: SSD offer much less re-writes of the > same "sector" than disk based Please, can't we kill this misconception once and for all? Yes, the first generation of SSDs had bad wear-leveling and there has been some exceptionally bad eggs along the way, but we're long past that point now. All brand name SSDs use wear leveling and unless you set up pathological destruction cases (fill the drive to 99% and keep re-writing the last 1% ) the drive will be obsolete before it wears out. What kills modern SSDs are either non-rewrite-related errors or server use that requires a full to-hardware flushes after all small changes. Even the author of the article you link to does not blame the failures on re-writes. Regarding that, it would be nice with an analysis of SSD failure rates that wasn't anecdotally based. I'm certainly interested. > so, as far as developer machines are involved, you should go for OSes > that use the disk efficiently [...] Efficiently as speed, yes. Efficiently as minimizing writes, no. On the contrary, disk swapping is much faster on SSDs along with temporary files and all the other secondary writes that are done throughout the day. Hit them hard. They're designed for it. An backup? Why yes, we all do that anyway. Right? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-user-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: java-user-h...@lucene.apache.org
