> From everything I've seen, an SSD wins simply because it's 20-100x the
> size. HBAs almost never have more than 512MB of cache, and even fancy
> SAN boxes generally have 1-2GB max. So, HBAs are subject to being
> overwhelmed with heavy I/O. The SSD ZIL has a much better chance of
> being able to
According to Sun, you want to make sure you use an SLC SSD for a ZIL, which are
a bit more expensive than the more-common MLC drives. There's the Intel X25-E,
and then the OCZ Agility EX and OCZ Vertex EX. Those are about the only ones I
know that have any significant presence in the market---bu
On 03/ 5/10 11:20 AM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
cache, as well, according to the HBA setup. And, a
good (SLC) SSD can
handle 50,000 IOPS until it's filled. Which takes a
Are there any SSDs that are worth while that don't cost a ton? At the current
prices for devices like the X25-E, even even those
> cache, as well, according to the HBA setup. And, a
> good (SLC) SSD can
> handle 50,000 IOPS until it's filled. Which takes a
Are there any SSDs that are worth while that don't cost a ton? At the current
prices for devices like the X25-E, even even those aren't perfect, I just can't
justify
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
In this email, when I say PERC, I really mean either a PERC, or any
other hardware WriteBack buffered raid controller with BBU.
For future server purchases, I want to know which is faster: (a) A
bunch of hard disks with PERC and WriteBack enabled, or (b) A bunch of
In this email, when I say PERC, I really mean either a PERC, or any other
hardware WriteBack buffered raid controller with BBU.
For future server purchases, I want to know which is faster: (a) A bunch of
hard disks with PERC and WriteBack enabled, or (b) A bunch of hard disks,
plus one SSD for
