SSDs and SAS

[Tech Savvy]

Does anyone use SSDs On a SAS server? I think I’m going to do two 500 GB crucial SSDs in RAID 1 for the system then four 500GB crucial SSDs in RAID 10 for the data. Purchasing two spare drives.

The server is the DC, print server, file server and houses the database for their self hosted EMR system. Windows Server 2016.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Depends on the clients budget. While SSDs in general have come down quite a bit in price, on servers, the higher true server grade SSDs (SAS, and PCIe)...are still very pricey. For clients that want the best of the best and have the wallet for it, do PCIe and SAS. For clients that moan and groan about prices of servers and wont crack their wallet open so much, SATA SSD is still a little faster than spindle SAS...so that's where we use those.
SAS SSD is about twice as fast as SATA SSD and has much lower latency, less hardware overhead
And PCIe flash storage...another 4 times faster than SAS SSD. But it comes with some drawbacks. (I believe they still don't have any hot swap options).

We've done both SATA and SAS SSD servers. Have not done a PCIe one.
You can definitely notice SAS SSD is a big improvement over SAS spindle.
A SATA SSD is just a little faster than a SAS spindle 10krpm 2.5".

 

[Tech Savvy]

@YeOldeStonecat
Thanks for the info! This definitely helps! Is there any difference of longevity or reliability between them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Yes there are differences. Enterprise class SSDs typically cost at least 3 times as much as consumer grade drives because of one primary reason....they are rated for a much higher length of write cycle duty. They have more "spare cells"....and they don't oversubscribe their storage of bits per cell like consumer grade drives to.
Here's a quick blurb...
https://www.itprotoday.com/high-spe...en-enterprise-and-consumer-solid-state-drives

 

[HCHTech]

They have more "spare cells

At least with Intel, they must get the additional spare cells by just reserving more of them, as opposed to adding more cells in manufacturing. Their server SSDs come in 1.6TB, 960GB and 480GB Capacities.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

The server grade ones do have more cells, hence part of the higher cost, because they're not oversubscribing them by stacking more bits per cell. So...yeah, more "material" in there.

 

[fencepost]

One thing you'll see regarding Enterprise SSDs is distinctions between workload types. Write-intensive drives are going to have a ton of extra "hidden" capacity so that wear leveling can really do its thing; read-intensive drives will have less of that but may be faster to read data (? maybe? haven't looked into that). There may also be differences in failure modes, for example I've heard that Samsung's Pro SSDs fail to read-only, where the consumer-focused Evo line may fail to brick (as with many SSDs).

 

[HCHTech]

I've heard that Samsung's Pro SSDs fail to read-only

Wow! If that's true, that's a good argument to go with the pro drives....although not sure if I'd tell my client that. That would be the one thing they would remember if it ended up getting bricked.

 

[Altster]

And of course you have a great backup plan in place when using SSD drives - right?

 

[Slaters Kustum Machines]

And of course you have a great backup plan in place when using SSD drives - right?

Or any drive for that matter.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

And of course you have a great backup plan in place when using SSD drives - right?

Since we're talking about servers here...good backup should already be in place no matter what kind of drives are in there. And antivirus. And battery backups. And monitoring/alerting of hardware.

 

[labtech]

Don't recommend Crucial SSDs. Hardware wise, they have issues with certain discrete chips (e.g. regulators).

 

[Tech Savvy]

And of course you have a great backup plan in place when using SSD drives - right?

Of course! Local and off site for both full image including exchange and file backups.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Don't recommend Crucial SSDs. Hardware wise, they have issues with certain discrete chips (e.g. regulators).

Curious for more specifics there. We have ...probably near or over a thousand Crucial SSDs out there. We don't see issues.
Course we always update the firmware on them before installing..and frequently update the firmware on them, as we do with ANY SSD brand. We use Crucials on the "cheap/budget" servers (like the HP Mini's). For other servers typically the brands own enterprise class SSDs.

 

[labtech]

Curious for more specifics there. We have ...probably near or over a thousand Crucial SSDs out there. We don't see issues.
Course we always update the firmware on them before installing..and frequently update the firmware on them, as we do with ANY SSD brand. We use Crucials on the "cheap/budget" servers (like the HP Mini's). For other servers typically the brands own enterprise class SSDs.

Not sure what else I can add. Firmware is firmware, typically ok, unless it is a SandForce controller in charge of the firmware, which sucks.

The failure I referred to is electronics related, where regulators on the board fail. Maybe only a certain batch of models may have been affected. Though on a series of drives, the layout is identical. The only thing that changes primarily is the number of flash chips to increase capacity. All other chipware is virtually the same.

And I can only say based on what is coming in for data recovery, which is a stat lower in numbers compared to what IT folks deploy in the field.

I guess one more fact for me is one of my computer shop partners keeps replacing failed Crucial SSDs on machines that have gone to his competitor, who installed them within the last 1-2 years. I personally witnessed this at least 3 times, while being in the shop picking up drives for data recovery for other customers. It has kind of become "the joke" at their shop.

 

[fencepost]

If that's true, that's a good argument to go with the pro drives

I'd consider it anecdata at best, I'm sure there's not any guarantee that drives would be readable. At best, there's a better chance. My feeling remains that if you're using an SSD you must not be dependent on that SSD surviving to keep your data.