Brent W
Well-known member
Normally around 6000 - 9000 users online (via Google Analytics Real time), how about you?
Jesus.
Normally around 6000 - 9000 users online (via Google Analytics Real time), how about you?
It depends, do you value your data and don't mind replacing your SSD's on a regular basis? Do you have a reliable backup solution in place?SSD's are the way to go...if you can afford them.
Holy crap! Your site isn't that old then. Ours is online for more then a decade.Normally around 6000 - 9000 users online (via Google Analytics Real time), how about you?
It depends, do you value your data and don't mind replacing your SSD's on a regular basis? Do you have a reliable backup solution in place?
......
In conclusion, nothing will replace a fair number of SAS 15K disks mounted in RAID (Redhat) or ZFS (FreeBSD). At least not for now, with current SSD technology.
And IF one fails due to it's age, I doubt it would happen spontaneously and you would not be able to save almost all data on it (unlike most failed HDDs).
Holy crap! Your site isn't that old then. Ours is online for more then a decade.
We have around 500-1000 users online normally.
@Floren:
That was the case for most of the earlier SSD's. The one I meantioned earlier is the newest generation, you can fill that drive 100% 10 times a day...for 5 years.
The firmware of most modern SSD's is so advanced now that degredation isn't really an issie anymore unless you have a ridicilous large website/application that writes TB's a day...
Uhmmm.. not a good idea to run SSD's in RAID 5 (or it's associated types) if I remember correctly. RAID 1 or 10 was the suggested at the time I was looking at it.raid 1/5/6/10 is pretty normal
Shouldn't run without it.
Actually, it depends on your specific workloadUhmmm.. not a good idea to run SSD's in RAID 5 (or it's associated types) if I remember correctly. RAID 1 or 10 was the suggested at the time I was looking at it.
From what I remembered, it was more than write speed... it was the actual # of writes involved. The RAID 5 had a higher number of writes because of it's nature, and with the finite (although a high number) for SSD's it would kill them sooner than a RAID 1/10 config.Actually, it depends on your specific workload
From what I remembered, it was more than write speed... it was the actual # of writes involved. The RAID 5 had a higher number of writes because of it's nature, and with the finite (although a high number) for SSD's it would kill them sooner than a RAID 1/10 config.
This may be part of the issue. Not all hosting providers are using actual enterprise level SSD's - a lot of them are using desktop versions.What you're describing is an issue of SSDs before 2009 that didn't have wear leveling technologies and high write tolerance.
Anyways you can write over a petabyte to a high grade SSD
The petabyte write tolerance was tested on an intel 520, and a samsung 840 proThis may be part of the issue. Not all hosting providers are using actual enterprise level SSD's - a lot of them are using desktop versions.
Like I said, it was a while ago. We typically just stick with SAS drives for what we use.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.