> I disagree that those drives are "good enough". That particular drive > uses the dreaded JMicron controller - which has a really bad > reputation. And a poor reputation that it *earned* and deserves. > Even though these drives use a newer revision of the original JMicron > part (that basically sucks) - this one is *not* much better. Have a > look at this recent article from tomshardware.com and you'll see the > performance characteristics of the 128Gb version of your 64Gb drive. > And, BTW, usually (nearly always) the larger version of a drive > performs better than the smaller (versions) of the same drive family. > Here's the link: > > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518.html > > As regards Intels SLC products, the newer version of the x25E product > will arrive RSN (Real Soon Now) - although no-one knows the exact > release date. The new drives will be 50, 100 and 200Gb in size and > are based on the newer 34nm flash parts (as is the G2 version of the > x25m). So I would not recommend purchasing the X25E series until the > new models are released. > > I guess i got some bad advice then I was told the kingston snv125-s2 used almost the exact same hardware as an x25-m and should be considered the "poor mans" x25-m
> Someone else suggested the OCZ vertex - again watch out for the lower > performance of the smaller members of this family. The 120Gb version > of that drive has had many positive reviews - but is outside your > budget. > > With a hard $300 budget I'd go with two of the Kingston 40Gb drives I > posted about on this list (email if you can't find the post). This > product is a stripped down Intel x25m - half the flash and half the > control channels. Writes are 1/2 of an x25m - but reads are pretty > good. Excellent for a boot device and available for just under $100 > each. > > Right, i couldn't find any of the 40 gb's in stock so i ordered the 64 gb.....same exact model, only bigger....does your previous statement about the larger model ssd's not apply to the kingstons? > If you don't mind going $100 over budget [1], then I'd add a *single* > Intel x25m 80Gb drive and partition it to experiment with slog and zil > storage. Since the *known* failure rates on SSDs are very low, I > would not be worried with not having mirrored larc. I'd use the x25m > to run a set of experiments - as others have suggested. Since its so > *fast* to experiment with ZFS - you'll reach solid conclusions after a > couple of hours of experiments and then decide what you want to do as > regards using SSDs. You can always re-purpose the x25m for another > application. And if you decide it adds value to your ZFS box, down > the road you can add a 2nd one and mirror it. > > Like i said, i already ORDERED all this stuff....some of it has arrived, some hasn't I ordered 3 ssd's...originally had different ideas on how i could use them but decided that using them as rpool and l2arc wouldn't be a bad idea....then later (this original thread post) i asked what i could get for around 300 bucks for ZIL....then someone mentions the ocz drive...I remember reading a toms hardware article comparing that drive with the kingston drive i ordered and also a corsair drive saying the kingston was the best for some things and close on every test. > Thomas - I think you're over analyzing your ZFS config at this point. > Like I said - build it and experiment. > > This is likely true. I tend to do this with everything...I'm a tinkerer and i like to know as much as possible before i start....over analyzing is something i do with most everything.....i probably spent too much money for my needs as well....To give you an idea, this "server" originally started as a 1 tb drive in a celeron..i kept adding new parts and new drives....it started as linux with a single drive, then moved to xfs on software raid...i later learned of ZFS but opensolaris wouldn't work on my hardware so i opted for FreeBSD, i expanded the pool a couple times and now i'm at the point where i'm droppping more money on stuff to make it work in opensolaris. I learned a lot in FreeBSD about ZFS in general....but yah, in all actuality i would probably be better off waiting till everyhting is here and my server is running to see if i even NEED this. I do appreciate the advice though, that's why i subscribe to this list, to get answers to my nubbish questions and learn from people who know more than i'll probably ever know about ZFS =) > [1] and you could always drop one or two data drives. There's a big > advantage to only buying the storage capacity you need *right now* - > since, by deferring the purchase of additional space you need in the > future, you'll likely be able to purchase higher density, higher > performance and lower cost-per-gigabyte drives when you do *need* the > extra storage. > > i COULD if they weren't already on the way I'm ok with what i've got.....i KNOW that spending 400 on an ssd is going to be the best bet IF i need ZIL I basically wanted to know if anyone has gotten away with using some cheaper drives with decent results, what the caveats are and what would work. I think i've got most of my answers (though now i feel really bad about my kingston ssd's....) PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using Amazon > Web Services (AWS) S3 service. Right now there is no charge to push > data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there. Do a > quick (back of the napkin) calculation on what storage you can get for > $30/month and factor in bandwidth costs (to pull the data when/if you > need it). My "napkin" calculations tell me that I cannot compete > with AWS S3 for up to 100Gb of storage available 7x24. Even the > electric utility bill would be more than AWS charges - especially when > you consider UPS and air conditioning. And thats not including any > hardware (capital equipment) costs! see: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/ > > > > > Basically, if i have 3 raidz2 groups or 4 raidz groups with a total of 20 > 7200 RPM drives is using a cheaper MLC drive going to make things WORSE? > > > > thanks for the idea though, i may try to ocz vertex > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, tom wagner <mama_j...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Myself and others had good luck with the OCZ vertex. I use two 30GB > versions and they have very high write and read throughputs for such a cheap > MLC. > >> -- > >> This message posted from opensolaris.org > >> _______________________________________________ > >> zfs-discuss mailing list > >> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > > > Regards, > > -- > Al Hopper Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX a...@logical-approach.com > Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT > OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007 > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/ >
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
