Using one SSD drive?
User asked about consolidating Informix data, logs, and temp spaces onto a single SSD drive (Intel 520) instead of traditional separate disks. Art Kagel raised concerns about SSD write-cycle lifespan (100,000 cycles, potentially exhausted in 18 months with database workloads), while Lester Knutsen cited performance benefits from an IBM Data Magazine article.
Auto-generated by DrWatson from the posts below — may be imperfect; read the full thread.
Hi,
I'm seeking advice with new hardware.
We're currently using IDS 11.50.tc2 growth edition.
We have a smallish database, currently around 15GB, that is accessed mostly
for read operations - probably over 95% of activity is just reporting. All of
the regularly accessed tables would fit in memory. Roughly up to 50
simultaneous users, although onstat is showing 104 active sessions, 195
maximum.
We are now in process of getting new hardware to upgrade this server to ids
11.70 on windows server 2008 r2 64bit with 16GB ram.
I was contemplating using an 'Intel 520 series sata3 6gbps' SSD drive
(probably two drives with hardware raid mirroring).
** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see any
problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one drive?
I know this goes against the conventional wisdom of keeping the different
spaces to seperate disks, but that was from before SSD's, and this is a small
database.
I was thinking this SSD should still be a lot faster than the seperate 7200rpm
sata disks we currently use. For recovery I think I'd be covered by both the
raid mirror, and also the hourly VSS snapshot backup of the entire server. The
logs are backed up immediately to a seperate disk and then also copied to a
remote server.
Thanks for your thoughts or suggestions.
Regards,
Bryce Stenberg
IT Department
Harness Racing New Zealand Inc.
My only concern about exclusively using SSD drives for a database is that
the current state of SSD technology puts the expected lifetime of the drive
at about 1.5 years which is too short to my mind.
Art
Art S. Kagel
Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com)
Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/
Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions
and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any
other organization with which I am associated either explicitly,
implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of
other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor
those of the entities themselves.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM, BRYCE STENBERG <bryce@hrnz.co.nz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeking advice with new hardware.
>
> We're currently using IDS 11.50.tc2 growth edition.
> We have a smallish database, currently around 15GB, that is accessed mostly
> for read operations - probably over 95% of activity is just reporting. All
> of
> the regularly accessed tables would fit in memory. Roughly up to 50
> simultaneous users, although onstat is showing 104 active sessions, 195
> maximum.
>
> We are now in process of getting new hardware to upgrade this server to ids
> 11.70 on windows server 2008 r2 64bit with 16GB ram.
>
> I was contemplating using an 'Intel 520 series sata3 6gbps' SSD drive
> (probably two drives with hardware raid mirroring).
>
> ** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see
> any
> problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one
> drive?
>
> I know this goes against the conventional wisdom of keeping the different
> spaces to seperate disks, but that was from before SSD's, and this is a
> small
> database.
>
> I was thinking this SSD should still be a lot faster than the seperate
> 7200rpm
> sata disks we currently use. For recovery I think I'd be covered by both
> the
> raid mirror, and also the hourly VSS snapshot backup of the entire server.
> The
> logs are backed up immediately to a seperate disk and then also copied to a
> remote server.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts or suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Bryce Stenberg
> IT Department
> Harness Racing New Zealand Inc.
>
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
--14dae9340d59432ba204be696dec
I wrote an article on SSD drives in the Informix column of IBM Data
Magazine... link below. They can work very well and are much better then the
current very large drives.
http://ibmdatamag.com/2012/03/running-informix-on-solid-state-drives-speed-up-da
tabase-access/
Regards - Lester
On 4/23/12 3:49 PM, BRYCE STENBERG wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeking advice with new hardware.
>
> We're currently using IDS 11.50.tc2 growth edition.
> We have a smallish database, currently around 15GB, that is accessed mostly
> for read operations - probably over 95% of activity is just reporting. All of
> the regularly accessed tables would fit in memory. Roughly up to 50
> simultaneous users, although onstat is showing 104 active sessions, 195
> maximum.
>
> We are now in process of getting new hardware to upgrade this server to ids
> 11.70 on windows server 2008 r2 64bit with 16GB ram.
>
> I was contemplating using an 'Intel 520 series sata3 6gbps' SSD drive
> (probably two drives with hardware raid mirroring).
>
> ** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see any
> problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one
drive?
>
> I know this goes against the conventional wisdom of keeping the different
> spaces to seperate disks, but that was from before SSD's, and this is a small
> database.
>
> I was thinking this SSD should still be a lot faster than the seperate
7200rpm
> sata disks we currently use. For recovery I think I'd be covered by both the
> raid mirror, and also the hourly VSS snapshot backup of the entire server.
The
> logs are backed up immediately to a seperate disk and then also copied to a
> remote server.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts or suggestions.
>
> Regards,
> Bryce Stenberg
> IT Department
> Harness Racing New Zealand Inc.
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
> Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum.
>
>
>
--
______________________________________________________________________
Lester Knutsen lester@advancedatatools.com
Advanced DataTools Corporation Voice: 703-256-0267 x102
Visit our Web page: http://www.advancedatatools.com
______________________________________________________________________
Hi Art, I was wondering if you could expand on why you think the expected lifetime of SSD drives is only 1.5 years? Intel seem to think they will last as the warranty on these 520 SSD's is 5 years... Or am I missing something here? Regards, Bryce Stenberg. >On Tuesday, 24 April 2012, at 5:32 am, Art Kagel wrote: My only concern about exclusively using SSD drives for a database is that the current state of SSD technology puts the expected lifetime of the drive at about 1.5 years which is too short to my mind. >>On 4/23/12 3:49 PM, BRYCE STENBERG wrote: I'm seeking advice with new hardware. .... I was contemplating using an 'Intel 520 series sata3 6gbps' SSD drive (probably two drives with hardware raid mirroring). .... ** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see any problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one drive?
Hi Lester, Thanks for that article, from your testing it looks I should get a good performance gain putting everything on the one SSD drive. Just have to follow up on reliability. Cheers, Bryce Stenberg. >On Tuesday, 24 April 2012, at 6:46 p.m, Lester Knutson wrote: I wrote an article on SSD drives in the Informix column of IBM Data Magazine... link below. They can work very well and are much better then the current very large drives. http://ibmdatamag.com/2012/03/running-informix-on-solid-state-drives-speed-up-da tabase-access/ >>On 4/23/12 3:49 PM, BRYCE STENBERG wrote: ** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see any problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one drive?
The spec for the current generation of NAND gate flash memory that underlies most of the SSD drives is rated for 100,000 write-erases cycles. If you are using them for flat files that could be many years of happy use. If you are using them for database storage, that could be exceeded in about 18 months. It's not really the lifetime that has me concerned. You know as well as I do that the disk drives in your data center are also rated to last for about 4 years and that many of those drives are far older than that! Imagine if they were SSD drives and had been ignored for 6 or 8 years. That's what has me worried. Art Art S. Kagel Advanced DataTools (www.advancedatatools.com) Blog: http://informix-myview.blogspot.com/ Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that my own opinions are my own opinions and do not reflect on my employer, Advanced DataTools, the IIUG, nor any other organization with which I am associated either explicitly, implicitly, or by inference. Neither do those opinions reflect those of other individuals affiliated with any entity with which I am affiliated nor those of the entities themselves. On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:51 PM, BRYCE STENBERG <bryce@hrnz.co.nz> wrote: > Hi Art, > > I was wondering if you could expand on why you think the expected lifetime > of > SSD drives is only 1.5 years? Intel seem to think they will last as the > warranty on these 520 SSD's is 5 years... Or am I missing something here? > > Regards, Bryce Stenberg. > > >On Tuesday, 24 April 2012, at 5:32 am, Art Kagel wrote: > My only concern about exclusively using SSD drives for a database is that > the current state of SSD technology puts the expected lifetime of the drive > at about 1.5 years which is too short to my mind. > > >>On 4/23/12 3:49 PM, BRYCE STENBERG wrote: > I'm seeking advice with new hardware. > ..... > I was contemplating using an 'Intel 520 series sata3 6gbps' SSD drive > (probably two drives with hardware raid mirroring). > ..... > ** Since these are so fast and there are no moving heads, can anyone see > any problems with my putting the data, logs and temp spaces all on this one > drive? > > > > ******************************************************************************* > Forum Note: Use "Reply" to post a response in the discussion forum. > > --14dae9340661e8768704be89e6c4