>
>
>
> From earlier in the thread, it sounds like none of the SF-1500 based
> drives even have a supercap, so it doesn't seem that they'd necessarily
> be a better choice than the SLC-based X-25E at this point unless you
> need more write IOPS...
>
> Ray
>
I think the upcoming OCZ Vertex 2 Pro wi
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:30:20AM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading
> with an out of place reply. :)
>
> So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence
> are the Vertex 2 LE and Vertex 2 EX, correct (I under
This thread has grown giant, so apologies for screwing up threading
with an out of place reply. :)
So, as far as SF-1500 based SSD's, the only ones currently in existence
are the Vertex 2 LE and Vertex 2 EX, correct (I understand the Vertex 2
Pro was never mass produced)?
Both of these are based
> "d" == Don writes:
> "hk" == Haudy Kazemi writes:
d> You could literally split a sata cable and add in some
d> capacitors for just the cost of the caps themselves.
no, this is no good. The energy only flows in and out of the
capacitor when the voltage across it changes. I
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2010, Don wrote:
You could literally split a sata cable and add in some capacitors for
just the cost of the caps themselves. The issue there is whether the
caps would present too large a current drain on initial charge up- If
they do then you need to add
On Fri, 21 May 2010, Don wrote:
You could literally split a sata cable and add in some capacitors
for just the cost of the caps themselves. The issue there is whether
the caps would present too large a current drain on initial charge
up- If they do then you need to add in charge controllers an
Basic electronics, go!
The linked capacitor from Elna (
http://www.elna.co.jp/en/capacitor/double_layer/catalog/pdf/dk_e.pdf) has an
internal resistance of 30 ohms.
Intel rate their 32GB X25-E at 2.4W active (we aren't interested in idle
power usage, if its idle, we don't need the capacitor in th
On 22 maj 2010, at 07.40, Don wrote:
>> The SATA power connector supplies 3.3, 5 and 12v. A "complete"
>> solution will have all three. Most drives use just the 5v, so you can
>> probably ignore 3.3v and 12v.
> I'm not interested in building something that's going to work for every
> possible dr
> The SATA power connector supplies 3.3, 5 and 12v. A "complete"
> solution will have all three. Most drives use just the 5v, so you can
> probably ignore 3.3v and 12v.
I'm not interested in building something that's going to work for every
possible drive config- just my config :) Both the Intel X
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Don wrote:
> Oh I wasn't kidding when I said I was going to have to try this with my home
> server. I actually do some circuit board design and this would be an amusing
> project. All you probably need is 5v- I'll look into it.
The SATA power connector supplies
On 05/22/10 12:31 PM, Don wrote:
I just spoke with a co-worker about doing something about it.
He says he can design a small in-line "UPS" that will deliver 20-30
seconds of 3.3V, 5V, and 12V to the SATA power connector for about $50
in parts. It would be even less if only one voltage was needed
> I just spoke with a co-worker about doing something about it.
>
> He says he can design a small in-line "UPS" that will deliver 20-30
> seconds of 3.3V, 5V, and 12V to the SATA power connector for about $50
> in parts. It would be even less if only one voltage was needed. That
> should be enough
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Don wrote:
> I'm kind of flabbergasted that no one has simply stuck a capacitor on a more
> reasonable drive. I guess the market just isn't big enough- but I find that
> hard to believe.
I just spoke with a co-worker about doing something about it.
He says he c
On May 20, 2010, at 7:17 PM, Ragnar Sundblad wrote:
On 21 maj 2010, at 00.53, Ross Walker wrote:
On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
disable the ZIL
instead.
This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one
On the PCIe side, I noticed there's a new card coming from LSI that claims
150,000 4k random writes. Unfortunately this might end up being an OEM-only
card.
I also notice on the ddrdrive site that they now have an opensolaris driver and
are offering it in a beta program.
--
This message posted
> So, IMHO, a cheap consumer ssd used as a zil may still be worth it (for
> some use cases) to narrow the window of data loss from ~30 seconds to a
> sub-second value.
There are lots of reasons to enable the ZIL now- I can throw four very
inexpensive SSD's in there now in a pair of mirrors, and th
On May 20, 2010, at 1:12 PM, Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On 05/20/10 12:26, Miles Nordin wrote:
>> I don't know, though, what to do about these reports of devices that
>> almost respect cache flushes but seem to lose exactly one transaction.
>> AFAICT this should be a works/doesntwork situation, not
On 21 maj 2010, at 00.53, Ross Walker wrote:
> On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
>
>>> use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
>>> disable the ZIL
>>> instead.
>>
>>
>> This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD that is
>> considered "worki
On May 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM, Travis Tabbal wrote:
use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
disable the ZIL
instead.
This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD
that is considered "working", the Zeus IOPS. Even if I had the
money, I can't buy it. As my ap
> use a slog at all if it's not durable? You should
> disable the ZIL
> instead.
This is basically where I was going. There only seems to be one SSD that is
considered "working", the Zeus IOPS. Even if I had the money, I can't buy it.
As my application is a home server, not a datacenter, thin
On 05/20/10 12:26, Miles Nordin wrote:
I don't know, though, what to do about these reports of devices that
almost respect cache flushes but seem to lose exactly one transaction.
AFAICT this should be a works/doesntwork situation, not a continuum.
But there's so much brokenness out there. I've
> "d" == Don writes:
d> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any
d> persistant buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the
d> best you can do." This actually brings up another question I
d> had: What is the risk, beyond a few seconds of lost wri
On 20 maj 2010, at 20.35, David Magda wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 14:12, Travis Tabbal wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote:
>>
>>> The data risk is a few moments of data loss. However,
>>> if the order of the
>>> uberblock updates is not preserved (which is why the
>>> caches are
On Thu, May 20, 2010 14:12, Travis Tabbal wrote:
>> On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote:
>
>> The data risk is a few moments of data loss. However,
>> if the order of the
>> uberblock updates is not preserved (which is why the
>> caches are flushed)
>> then recovery from a reboot may require man
> On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote:
> The data risk is a few moments of data loss. However,
> if the order of the
> uberblock updates is not preserved (which is why the
> caches are flushed)
> then recovery from a reboot may require manual
> intervention. The amount
> of manual interventio
On 20 maj 2010, at 00.20, Don wrote:
> "You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
> one before the currently open transaction)."
>
> And I don't think that bothers me. As long as the array itself doesn't go
> belly up- then a few seconds of lost transactions are lar
"You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
one before the currently open transaction)."
I'll pick one- performance :)
Honestly- I wish I had a better grasp on the real world performance of these
drives. 50k IOPS is nice- and considering the incredible likelihood of d
"You can lose all writes from the last committed transaction (i.e., the
one before the currently open transaction)."
And I don't think that bothers me. As long as the array itself doesn't go belly
up- then a few seconds of lost transactions are largely irrelevant- all of the
QA virtual machines
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 02:29:24PM -0700, Don wrote:
> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any
> persistant buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the best you
> can do."
>
> This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk,
> beyond a few seconds of los
On May 19, 2010, at 2:29 PM, Don wrote:
> "Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any persistant
> buffer storage, disabling the write cache is the best you can do."
>
> This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk, beyond a
> few seconds of lost writes, if
"Since it ignores Cache Flush command and it doesn't have any persistant buffer
storage, disabling the write cache is the best you can do."
This actually brings up another question I had: What is the risk, beyond a few
seconds of lost writes, if I lose power, there is no capacitor and the cache
Well the larger size of the Vertex, coupled with their smaller claimed write
amplification should result in sufficient service life for my needs. Their
claimed MTBF also matches the Intel X25-E's.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-dis
On Wed, May 19, 2010 02:09, thomas wrote:
> Is it even possible to buy a zeus iops anywhere? I haven't been able to
> find one. I get the impression they mostly sell to other vendors like sun?
> I'd be curious what the price is on a 9GB zeus iops is these days?
Correct, their Zeus products are on
As for the Vertex drives- if they are within +-10% of the Intel they're still
doing it for half of what the Intel drive costs- so it's an option- not a great
option- but still an option.
Yes, but Intel is SLC. Much more endurance.
___
zfs-discuss
Well- 40k IOPS is the current claim from ZEUS- and they're the benchmark. They
use to be 17k IOPS. How real any of these numbers are from any manufacturer is
a guess.
Given the Intel's refusal to honor a cache flush, and their performance
problems with the cache disabled- I don't trust them any
On 2010-05-19 08.32, sensille wrote:
Don wrote:
With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL?
They're claiming 50k IOPS (4k Write- Aligned), 2 million hour MTBF, TRIM
support, etc. That's more write IOPS than the ZEUS (40k IOPS, $) but at
half the price of an In
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Don wrote:
> With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL?
The current Sandforce drives out don't have an ultra-capacitor on
them, so they could lose data if the system crashed. There are
supposed to be enterprise class drives based on th
Don wrote:
>
> With that in mind- Is anyone using the new OCZ Vertex 2 SSD's as a ZIL?
>
> They're claiming 50k IOPS (4k Write- Aligned), 2 million hour MTBF, TRIM
> support, etc. That's more write IOPS than the ZEUS (40k IOPS, $) but at
> half the price of an Intel X25-E (3.3k IOPS, $400).
40k IOPS sounds like "best in case, you'll never see it in the real world"
marketing to me. There are a few benchmarks if you google and they all seem to
indicate the performance is probably +/- 10% of an intel x25-e. I would
personally trust intel over one of these drives.
Is it even possible
I'm looking for alternatives SSD options to the Intel X25-E and the ZEUS IOPS.
The ZEUS IOPS would probably cost as much as my entire current disk system (80
15k SAS drives)- and that's just silly.
The Intel is much less expensive, and while fast- pales in comparison to the
ZEUS.
I've allocate
40 matches
Mail list logo
