I’ve been looking at VPS providers, and most of them offer SSD-based VPSs, so they seem to be increasingly popular. I suspect that most VPSs do not get consistently hammered, though.
Peter — p...@ehealth.id.au “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” > On 8 Mar 2021, at 11:30 am, Todd Doucet <t...@lambentresearch.com> wrote: > > I think one can only get so far with purely qualitative analysis of the > characteristics of SSDs and HDs and then the end of that analysis will be > one-size-fits all advice, for example "recommended" or "not recommended" for > servers. > > Surely the answer might vary depending on the particular server usage > pattern, the need for performance, the cost of routine maintenance (swapping > out aging drives or SSDs), the cost of the devices themselves, etc. > > It seems to me that a given server operator can tell how long a particular > SSD is likely to last. They do not fail randomly, at least not very much. > The fail when they are "used up" and you can figure out well in advance, > usually, when you will need to swap the old ones out of service. > > HDs fail also, obviously, but tend not to be so predictable about it. > Whether it makes sense for a given server to use an SSD really does depend on > the numbers. All drives will fail. All drives will need to be rotated out > of service. It is a matter of cost, convenience, and performance. > > The only caveat I can think of is that there might be an issue of malicious > use--a server with SSDs might be vulnerable to a wear attack, depending on > the server services offered, I suppose. > > > > >> To emphasize again, the reason SSDs aren’t recommended for servers is >> because servers—by definition—see much heavier service, and these read/write >> cycles are used up more quickly. >> >> For personal use in a PC, or such, SSDs are proving to be the dream they >> were promised to be. >> >> As mentioned, given time, the technology will overcome this limitation for >> use in servers and these comments will be just so much past history. >> >> Dave C. >> >> - - - >> >> > The “on/off” switches in SSD’s are fragile and essentially break after >> > too many read/write cycles. As pointed out, it’s a get what you pay for >> > world and cheap SSD’s are just that… cheap. The expensive ones are more >> > reliable because they actually make available only a portion of their >> > total capacity, reserving the rest as replacements for such failures. >> > Intelligent software within the firmware manages this so that the end user >> > experiences a much longer device lifespan. >> > >> > There’s lots of technical documentation for such. Google knows. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> >>> On Mar 7, 2021, at 18:15, Michael A. Leonetti via macports-users >> >>> <macports-users@lists.macports.org >> >>> <mailto:macports-users@lists.macports.org>> wrote: >> >> I’d really love to know more about what you’re saying here. Up until I >> >> just read what you wrote, I thought SSDs were the savior of HDDs. >> >> Michael A. Leonetti >> >> As warm as green tea >> >>> 3/7/21 午後5:26、Dave Horsfall <d...@horsfall.org >> >>> <mailto:d...@horsfall.org>>のメール: >> >>> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Dave C via macports-users wrote: >> >>>> Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them, >> >>>> apparently due to short lifespan. >> >>> If you knew how SSDs worked then you wouldn't use them at all without >> >>> many backups. Give me spinning rust any day... >> >>> -- Dave
