lucene-java-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Toke Eskildsen>
Subject Re: SSD Experience (on developer machine)
Date Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:37:06 GMT
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 11:52 +0200, Federico Fissore wrote:
> we are probably running out of topic here, but for the record, there is 
> also someone lamenting about ssd

I find all of this highly on-topic. SSD reliability is an important
issue. We use customer-grade SSDs (Intel 510 were the latest ones
bought) in our servers as we see no point in enterprise-grade
reliability when we are mirroring machines.

> the underlying point is correct: SSD offer much less re-writes of the 
> same "sector" than disk based

Please, can't we kill this misconception once and for all?

Yes, the first generation of SSDs had bad wear-leveling and there has
been some exceptionally bad eggs along the way, but we're long past that
point now. All brand name SSDs use wear leveling and unless you set up
pathological destruction cases (fill the drive to 99% and keep
re-writing the last 1% ) the drive will be obsolete before it wears out.

What kills modern SSDs are either non-rewrite-related errors or server
use that requires a full to-hardware flushes after all small changes.
Even the author of the article you link to does not blame the failures
on re-writes.

Regarding that, it would be nice with an analysis of SSD failure rates
that wasn't anecdotally based. I'm certainly interested.

> so, as far as developer machines are involved, you should go for OSes 
> that use the disk efficiently [...]

Efficiently as speed, yes. Efficiently as minimizing writes, no. On the
contrary, disk swapping is much faster on SSDs along with temporary
files and all the other secondary writes that are done throughout the
day. Hit them hard. They're designed for it.

An backup? Why yes, we all do that anyway. Right?

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message