On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 14:24 -0700, Richard Elling wrote: > On Jul 23, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Greg Mason wrote: > > >>>> I think it is a great idea, assuming the SSD has good write > >>>> performance. > >>> This one claims up to 230MB/s read and 180MB/s write and it's only > >>> $196. > >>> > >>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820609393 > >>> > >>> Compared to this one (250MB/s read and 170MB/s write) which is $699. > >>> > >> Oops. Forgot the link: > >> > >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167014 > >>> Are those claims really trustworthy? They sound too good to be true! > >>> > >>> -Kyle > > > > Kyle- > > > > The less expensive SSD is an MLC device. The Intel SSD is an SLC > > device. > > Some newer designs use both SLC and MLC. It is no longer possible > to use SLC vs MLC as a primary differentiator. Use the specifications. > -- richard > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
I'm finding the new-gen MLC w/ large DRAM cache & improved microcontroller to be more than sufficient for workgroup server. e.g. the OCZ Summit series and similar. I suspect the Intel X25-M is likely good enough, too. I'm using one SSD for both read and write caches, and it's good enough for a 20-person small workgroup server doing NFS. I suspect that write caches are much more sensitive to IOPS performance than read ones, but that's just my feeling. In any case, I'd pay more attention to the IOPS rating for things, than the sync read/write speeds. I'm testing that set up right now for iSCSI-based xVM guests, so we'll see if it can stand the IOPs. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
