On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Eric D. Mudama <edmud...@bounceswoosh.org>wrote:
> True. In $ per sequential GB/s, rotating rust still wins by far. > However, your comment about all flash being slower than rotating at > sequential writes was mistaken. Even at 10x the price, if you're > working with a dataset that needs random IO, the $ per IOP from flash > can be significantly greater than any amount of rust, and typically > with much lower power consumption to boot. > > Obviously the primary benefits of SSDs aren't in sequential > reads/writes, but they're not necessarilly complete dogs there either. > It's all about iops. HDD can do about 300 iops, SSD can get up to 10k+ iops. On sequential writes obviously low iops is not a problem - 300 x 128kB is 40MB. But for small packet random sync NFS traffic 300 * 32kb is hardly a 1MB/s. Nicholas
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
