Best use of a SSD in a home/office server
-
I am building a replacement home/office server for a small software company. The server functions as a print server/web server (internet and intranet)/file server/sql server. Currently, the OS (2003) and other files are only using about 38 GB. I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that I had planned on putting everything on. (Server 2008 r2, SQL Server 2008, etc.) I also have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 drive that I was going to use for system backups and sql log files. Other hardware in the new build are a AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) and 8 GB DDR3 RAM. Most of the SQL databases are used for web reporting applications for yearly data, and so are mostly read heavy. (at least 90%) I have searched for information on best practices for using SSDs in production servers, but can't find enough information to make a decision on where to best implement the SSD in this scenario...as the main drive with the OS and applications, or as a secondary drive for only certain things like sql data files, web resources, etc. I am open to any suggestions. Thank You
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
I am building a replacement home/office server for a small software company. The server functions as a print server/web server (internet and intranet)/file server/sql server. Currently, the OS (2003) and other files are only using about 38 GB. I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that I had planned on putting everything on. (Server 2008 r2, SQL Server 2008, etc.) I also have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 drive that I was going to use for system backups and sql log files. Other hardware in the new build are a AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) and 8 GB DDR3 RAM. Most of the SQL databases are used for web reporting applications for yearly data, and so are mostly read heavy. (at least 90%) I have searched for information on best practices for using SSDs in production servers, but can't find enough information to make a decision on where to best implement the SSD in this scenario...as the main drive with the OS and applications, or as a secondary drive for only certain things like sql data files, web resources, etc. I am open to any suggestions. Thank You
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Today's Insider (the CodeProject daily newsletter) had a link to this blog[^] that may interest you. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
-
Today's Insider (the CodeProject daily newsletter) had a link to this blog[^] that may interest you. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
Thanks, I did see that article, which left me more confused than before. I went ahead with my initial plan and put the OS and apps on the SSD. Aftert installing SQL Server 2008 and Crystal Reports XI, I still have over 36 GB left over. SQL Server log files (including tempdb) are located on the secondary drive, as are all development files, database backups, system restore image, documents, etc. All in all, this was a very boring build...I spent more time planning it than it took to put together. Everything worked the very first time. It seems to be a very speedy system, from POST to desktop in less than 10 seconds. (not counting typing the login)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
Thanks, I did see that article, which left me more confused than before. I went ahead with my initial plan and put the OS and apps on the SSD. Aftert installing SQL Server 2008 and Crystal Reports XI, I still have over 36 GB left over. SQL Server log files (including tempdb) are located on the secondary drive, as are all development files, database backups, system restore image, documents, etc. All in all, this was a very boring build...I spent more time planning it than it took to put together. Everything worked the very first time. It seems to be a very speedy system, from POST to desktop in less than 10 seconds. (not counting typing the login)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Yes, I usually hear good things like that about SSD; the article I mentioned was the first negative I saw. You should report back in 12 months or so... Good luck. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, improve readability, and make me actually look at the code.
-
I am building a replacement home/office server for a small software company. The server functions as a print server/web server (internet and intranet)/file server/sql server. Currently, the OS (2003) and other files are only using about 38 GB. I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that I had planned on putting everything on. (Server 2008 r2, SQL Server 2008, etc.) I also have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 drive that I was going to use for system backups and sql log files. Other hardware in the new build are a AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) and 8 GB DDR3 RAM. Most of the SQL databases are used for web reporting applications for yearly data, and so are mostly read heavy. (at least 90%) I have searched for information on best practices for using SSDs in production servers, but can't find enough information to make a decision on where to best implement the SSD in this scenario...as the main drive with the OS and applications, or as a secondary drive for only certain things like sql data files, web resources, etc. I am open to any suggestions. Thank You
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
What is the goal of using a SSD? Is there something specifically that you want to fix? Or you just want to use one?
It was more a lust for speed combined with the price decreases. I also believed that the SSD would be more energy efficient and reliable. Needless to say, I was a bit conerned reading the aformentioned article about failure rates...with my shiny new SSD still in the box. It wasn't a fix for anything...I really have no complaints whatsoever with the current server. (single core 2.8 Intel, 3.7 GB DDR, SATA II master/slave, running Server 2003) If I didn't have to keep up with what the customers are using, I'd stick with it forever. This box has run 24/7 for over 5 years, aside from an occasional power outage or upgrade. I just hope I can get the same from my new setup. :)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
It was more a lust for speed combined with the price decreases. I also believed that the SSD would be more energy efficient and reliable. Needless to say, I was a bit conerned reading the aformentioned article about failure rates...with my shiny new SSD still in the box. It wasn't a fix for anything...I really have no complaints whatsoever with the current server. (single core 2.8 Intel, 3.7 GB DDR, SATA II master/slave, running Server 2003) If I didn't have to keep up with what the customers are using, I'd stick with it forever. This box has run 24/7 for over 5 years, aside from an occasional power outage or upgrade. I just hope I can get the same from my new setup. :)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
It was more a lust for speed combined with the price decreases. I also believed that the SSD would be more energy efficient and reliable. Needless to say, I was a bit conerned reading the aformentioned article about failure rates...with my shiny new SSD still in the box. It wasn't a fix for anything...I really have no complaints whatsoever with the current server. (single core 2.8 Intel, 3.7 GB DDR, SATA II master/slave, running Server 2003) If I didn't have to keep up with what the customers are using, I'd stick with it forever. This box has run 24/7 for over 5 years, aside from an occasional power outage or upgrade. I just hope I can get the same from my new setup. :)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Doesn't matter then. A server shouldn't be rebooting much and small performance improvements there don't matter. And you don't seem to be concerned about application speed either. As an administrator I would put the OS on it. And anything else that was implicitly recoverable such as applications. That speeds reboots and updates (administrator time) without endangering business data. Once you have more personal data on SSD and once SSDs have in fact actually been around long enough to be more realistically evaluated then you might use it elsewhere.
-
I am building a replacement home/office server for a small software company. The server functions as a print server/web server (internet and intranet)/file server/sql server. Currently, the OS (2003) and other files are only using about 38 GB. I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that I had planned on putting everything on. (Server 2008 r2, SQL Server 2008, etc.) I also have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 drive that I was going to use for system backups and sql log files. Other hardware in the new build are a AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) and 8 GB DDR3 RAM. Most of the SQL databases are used for web reporting applications for yearly data, and so are mostly read heavy. (at least 90%) I have searched for information on best practices for using SSDs in production servers, but can't find enough information to make a decision on where to best implement the SSD in this scenario...as the main drive with the OS and applications, or as a secondary drive for only certain things like sql data files, web resources, etc. I am open to any suggestions. Thank You
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
I have investigated in the past the SSD technology and there is not an easy decision. You should select very carefully the SSD part to check wear-leveling algorithms, error correction strength etc. Also it depends from your OS. The numbers that the manufacturers present as a reliability are not representative (ie. 20GB/day for 10 years). According to these numbers there would be no question. However nobody states that the least erasable sector is 128K (or more) so if you need to update one byte in the file you will need to erase 128K bytes (or consume a new sector). Of course this could be refined and minimize this to 4K sectors. Nevertheless although you might write 1byte, you consume 4K and thus the numbers changes. I would propose that if you have linux you can place your OS there in read-only mode (place temp and swap partitions to a standard HDD). Also you can save there your data. However keep in mind that the data retention on SSD is 10years (you can just write a cron script to copy the files once per 2 or 5 years :laugh: ). If the application that handles the data does not do many write access (either append or change) you are pretty safe. In case of windows i would recommend to place the OS on a HDD. The application could be to a SSD (assuming that these do not do heavy write activities inside their directory). You can use the sysinternals diskmon tool to gather actual read-write events to your HDD. Then you can make a histogram on Excel and see how many writes your system have. I believe you can select which disk to check. Regards
-
I am building a replacement home/office server for a small software company. The server functions as a print server/web server (internet and intranet)/file server/sql server. Currently, the OS (2003) and other files are only using about 38 GB. I have a 64 GB Patriot SSD that I had planned on putting everything on. (Server 2008 r2, SQL Server 2008, etc.) I also have a Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200 drive that I was going to use for system backups and sql log files. Other hardware in the new build are a AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.2 GHz) and 8 GB DDR3 RAM. Most of the SQL databases are used for web reporting applications for yearly data, and so are mostly read heavy. (at least 90%) I have searched for information on best practices for using SSDs in production servers, but can't find enough information to make a decision on where to best implement the SSD in this scenario...as the main drive with the OS and applications, or as a secondary drive for only certain things like sql data files, web resources, etc. I am open to any suggestions. Thank You
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Really the only good use of a SSD over a conventional rotating disk is in an application where the computer may be exposed to vibration. An SSD is not affected at all by vibration whereas a rotating disk can be brought to its knees. Some of the read/write speeds are really not very noticeably different, manufacturers exaggerate their specs beyond belief. Usually the rates they quote are only burst speeds that the drives can't sustain.