-=> Nightfox wrote to Weatherman <=-
Ni> Re: To shuck or not to shuck.
Ni> By: Weatherman to Nopants on Sat Jan 27 2024 02:14 am
We> SSDs are great for OS drives but any use scenario with heavy I/O
We> operations will eventually hit the write/rewrite limit on SSD cells. In
We> my work environment OS drives are SSDs and storage drives are spinning
We> drives.
Ni> Doesn't an OS write to its drive quite a lot? I thought modern OSes
Ni> typically write quite a bit in log files, swap files (if necessary),
Ni> etc.. I would have thought an OS drive would get more I/O usage than a
Ni> drive used for storage.
Ni> Nightfox
In general you are correct, however in the environment I work in the storage
drives see up to several million write/rewrite operations a day. Beyond that,
we're looking at arrays with as few as 12 storage disks per node and as many as
60 with up to 16 nodes per rack. With the difference between SSD and spinning
drive costs, it adds up pretty quick when you look at the difference in cost
per terabyte. Spinning drives are just cheaper, especially when you're looking
at petabytes per rack. It's just a lot cheaper to install a 960 GB SSD for OS,
another 480 GB SSD for read cache and then fill up the storage slots with as
many 8, 10, or 12 TB spinning drives as the customer specifies.
We DO have a model that is all SSD and it's the latest and greatest so it may
indicate the direction in which the product is going, but to tell the truth,
that model faces several operational challenges that the spinning drives do
not.
Anyway, all that is designed by people who are supposedly a lot smarter than me
(at least they get paid like they are). All I do is try to keep the damned
things running when the system admins are barely capable of putting their shoes
on the right feet in the morning.
... There are 10 kinds of people. Those who get binary and those who don't.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
■ Synchronet ■ The Lost Chord BBS - Cheyenne, WY
|
