Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Memory and Storage

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2012, 07:15 AM   #1
nk215
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 151
Default If your job depends on it, mechanical or SSD?

Hello everyone,

If you canít afford down time, would you use SSD as an OS drive on your computer?

Thatís my dilemma, at home, most of my computers use SSD as boot drive to gain some speed. But at work, after thinking hard and long, I picked mechanical HD for OS and SSD for data (which is religiously backed up to 4 places, two on site and 2 off sites. The data is also backed up onto the mechanical OS drive). As long as the computer can boot into windows, I have access to the data I need.

RAID 1 or 5 (for boot drive) is not an option at the moment

Mechanical HDs are obviously slow compared to SSDs but their reliable track record for is known (except those new 2TB+ drives). SSD is still rather new.

Performance is not that critical since the computer s are not doing anything special. Office, IE, excel etc. The computers are Dell optiflex 7010 with the latest i7 cpu.

Thanks
nk215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:25 AM   #2
Hellhammer
AnandTech SSD Editor
 
Hellhammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 527
Default

If you choose a reliable SSD (such as Samsung SSD 830), there is no need to worry about reliability. Of course there is still a chance that the drive will fail prematurely but that is the case with all electronics.
__________________
SSD Editor for AnandTech
Hellhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:32 AM   #3
GlacierFreeze
Golden Member
 
GlacierFreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,065
Default

If you can't have any down time and performance doesn't matter at all and isn't doing anything intensive, then I'd just go mechanical with RAID 1 and make sure they're setup correctly for hot swappable.
GlacierFreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:44 AM   #4
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,763
Default

Even if the worst SSDs have failure rates similar to HDDs. The best SSDs are more than an order of magnitude better in terms of reliability. Both are unreliable so how you treat them in terms of backup and failure is identical so the minor difference in reliability between the two wont change your overall productivity. The speed difference between the two technologies however will.
__________________
I no longer frequent these forums.
BrightCandle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:30 AM   #5
kleinkinstein
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Closet
Posts: 823
Default

Why choose. Go with both!
kleinkinstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:37 AM   #6
Burner27
Moderator
Memory and Storage
Video Cards and Graphics
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,666
Default

RAID1 x 2 SSDs.
Burner27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:47 AM   #7
rsutoratosu
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,344
Default

SSD & backup, if its a desktop/laptop run windows backup or some other backup, assuming you have w7, it'll backup to your schedule... just get a big ass file server
rsutoratosu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:22 AM   #8
capeconsultant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsutoratosu View Post
SSD & backup, if its a desktop/laptop run windows backup or some other backup, assuming you have w7, it'll backup to your schedule... just get a big ass file server
I agree. This is what I do. Both for web server and home desktop. Keeps things simple. And yet reliable.
__________________
Mac mini - 2.3ghz - core i7-16GB Ram | 24 inch Dell IPS monitor | OCZ Vector 512GB SSD | 2TB WD External | CapeWP.com
capeconsultant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:30 AM   #9
nk215
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 151
Default

Guys,

Raid is not an option at the moment.

Didn't anyone notice how often users report that the SSDs drop off in BIOS/BSOD/Boot Drive not found within the first year?

On paper, SSD is more reliable but it hasn't proven out in practice yet. I've experienced 2 mechanical HD failure in the last 15 years or so. Both of which were 5+ year old drives. I have no issue switching out the drives after 3+ years (computers get refreshed about that time too).
nk215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:36 AM   #10
A5
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,730
Default

If you have that kind of backup system setup, you can use whatever you want for the OS drive.

Quote:
Didn't anyone notice how often users report that the SSDs drop off in BIOS/BSOD/Boot Drive not found within the first year?
Don't buy an OCZ drive. For business, Samsung or Intel only.
A5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:38 AM   #11
GlacierFreeze
Golden Member
 
GlacierFreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
Raid is not an option at the moment.
RAID 1 or 5 with hot swapping is the only option if you're aiming for zero down time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
Didn't anyone notice how often users report that the SSDs drop off in BIOS/BSOD/Boot Drive not found within the first year?
Did you notice how many were OCZ? Vast majority of them.

Last edited by GlacierFreeze; 11-05-2012 at 11:41 AM.
GlacierFreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:50 AM   #12
nk215
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 151
Default

I would never touch an OCZ even if it were the same price as a mechanical HD. The one that I think of has some BSOD and BIOS drop off reports is the Crucial M4 (which I have 3 of w/o issue so far), from newegg.

I'll look into raid 1.

The only study that I found so far when they have thousands of SSD in a data server (155,000 intel SSD). In that case, the SSD is far exceeding the failure rate of the mechanical HD. However, these are Intel X25 SSD (both the consumer and the enterprise models).

After thinking harder and longer, I decided that I'll go with SSD but with the enterprise class devices. That means Intel X25-E 64G for the OS and Intel 710 for data if needed. I only need about 15GB for data so I may even be able to use an X25-E for that.

It's interesting to see that an enterprise SSD is still $10/G after 3 years.

Last edited by nk215; 11-05-2012 at 01:08 PM.
nk215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:01 PM   #13
Burner27
Moderator
Memory and Storage
Video Cards and Graphics
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
I've experienced 2 mechanical HD failure in the last 15 years or so. Both of which were 5+ year old drives. I have no issue switching out the drives after 3+ years (computers get refreshed about that time too).
The process of manufacturing mechanical drives nowadays (in my opinion) has gone downhill since the days of the drives you have had. I agree with GlacierFreeze regarding the setup you will need.
Burner27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:20 PM   #14
dave_the_nerd
Diamond Member
 
dave_the_nerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
I would never touch an OCZ even if it were the same price as a mechanical HD. The one that I think of has some BSOD and BIOS drop off reports is the Crucial M4 (which I have 3 of w/o issue so far), from newegg.

I'll look into raid 1.

The only study that I found so far when they have thousands of SSD in a data server (155,000 intel SSD). In that case, the SSD is far exceeding the failure rate of the mechanical HD. However, these are Intel X25 SSD (both the consumer and the enterprise models).

After thinking harder and longer, I decided that I'll go with SSD but with the enterprise class devices. That means Intel X25-E 64G for the OS and Intel 710 for data if needed. I only need about 15GB for data so I may even be able to use an X25-E for that.

It's interesting to see that an enterprise SSD is still $10/G after 3 years.
See, here, you're talking about how your job is on the line and how important reliability and availability is, but you're designing TWO single points of failure into the solution. That's asking for it.

1) Do not put your data on your boot drive.

2) RAID-1 mirror your data drives for availability.

2a) RAID-1 mirror your boot drives for availability.

3) If you can wait a month or two, go with the Intel SSD DC 3700. Intro price on the 100GB drives is 40% less than the current newegg price of the SSD 710.

4) You don't really need an SSD boot volume on a server that never reboots. You can probably "get away" with using mirrored spinners for the boot drive and mirrored SSDs for the data. Assuming end user I/O performance actually matters, and you have gigabit ethernet and all that jazz.

(Although price/GB calculations get thrown out the window with a data set that small. The least expensive SAS drives and the least expensive enterprise-grade SSDs are around the same price. The HDDs will hold 10x the data, but either will be way more capacious than you need for 15GBs of data.
__________________
Scientific progress goes "Boink?"

Windows Gaming Box: AsRock Z77E-ITX / i5-3570k @ 4GHz / 8GB RAM / GTX 660Ti / Samsung EVO 250GB / Seagate Momentus 750GB / Silverstone SG05.
NAS: Foxconn D-70S-P (Celeron 1037U) / 4GB DDR3 / 4x Toshiba DT01ACA200, 1x DT01ACA300, 1x DT01ABA200, / Fractal Node 804.

Last edited by dave_the_nerd; 11-05-2012 at 02:22 PM.
dave_the_nerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:54 PM   #15
nk215
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 151
Default

Dave;

I never said I put the data onto the boot drive. If/When I go with the X25-E then it would be two X25-E drives. I didn't state that clearly in the above post.

I'll take your advice and wait for the new DC 3700. Thank you.

I think about RAID 1 a lot lately, it comes down to this:

1) I don't trust the built-in raid - had bad experience with it before
2) I can get a hardware raid card. That's not the problem but I face similar question: what's the chance of the card itself fail vs. the X25-E SSD fail?

Up-time is only as good as the least reliable part. If the raid card is not as reliable as the X25-E then what's the point of using it at all?
nk215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 03:26 PM   #16
GlacierFreeze
Golden Member
 
GlacierFreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
Up-time is only as good as the least reliable part. If the raid card is not as reliable as the X25-E then what's the point of using it at all?
Any computer part has a chance of failure. If you keep second guessing then you'll never build a computer. Have to just take the plunge and go for it. Buy spare parts if it really is that huge of a deal. Have an extra hard drive/SSD ready to go so you can hot swap a bad one out if one fails in the RAID array. Buy an extra RAID card if you think it may fail. Buy an extra power supply. Buy an extra stick of RAM incase one goes bad. Buy an extra motherboard incase it dies. Buy an entire extra computer exactly the same, that gets backed up to hourly, incase the first one blows up or flood/fire/earthquake.

Fact is, there is going to be *some* down time at some point whether it's minutes or hours. If your boss is anal enough to fire you over 1 minute down time then that's not someone anyone should be working for. You can only prepare for so much before it gets insanely expensive.
GlacierFreeze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:06 PM   #17
dave_the_nerd
Diamond Member
 
dave_the_nerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 6,813
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
Dave;

I never said I put the data onto the boot drive. If/When I go with the X25-E then it would be two X25-E drives. I didn't state that clearly in the above post.

I'll take your advice and wait for the new DC 3700. Thank you.

I think about RAID 1 a lot lately, it comes down to this:

1) I don't trust the built-in raid - had bad experience with it before
2) I can get a hardware raid card. That's not the problem but I face similar question: what's the chance of the card itself fail vs. the X25-E SSD fail?

Up-time is only as good as the least reliable part. If the raid card is not as reliable as the X25-E then what's the point of using it at all?
The RAID cards, traditionally, have allowed arrays to be interchangeable (and recoverable) where motherboard RAID didn't. My understanding is that recent Intel ICHs are better about that though.

Statistically, drives fail a lot more often than motherboards or RAID cards, and RAID is a relatively affordable way to mitigate the downtime and data loss potential. (It's all gambling with statistics anyway.)

For really mission critical stuff, having a hot-spare system running as Glacier mentioned is totally a thing people do - it's just ludicrously expensive. I don't run a spare everything, but I'm too old, have too much disposable income, and have buried too many hard drives to build a server w/o RAID anymore.
__________________
Scientific progress goes "Boink?"

Windows Gaming Box: AsRock Z77E-ITX / i5-3570k @ 4GHz / 8GB RAM / GTX 660Ti / Samsung EVO 250GB / Seagate Momentus 750GB / Silverstone SG05.
NAS: Foxconn D-70S-P (Celeron 1037U) / 4GB DDR3 / 4x Toshiba DT01ACA200, 1x DT01ACA300, 1x DT01ABA200, / Fractal Node 804.
dave_the_nerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:25 PM   #18
nk215
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 151
Default

I, in fact, do have a spare in case the first computer goes down because of hardware issue (I'll just pull the data HD, put it in the spare and up it goes). I just never have 2 computers online at the same time because they can't have the same address.

Your post gave me this thought: I can just have both computer on, and have the data sync in real time from the main to the backup (drop box or something similar). When the main computer goes down, I'll just change the IP address of the backup comp to the main's IP address and everything should be back to normal.

In the past 10 years, I never have to to use the backup computer (knock on wood). The thought of having both running never occurs to me.
nk215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:36 PM   #19
Burner27
Moderator
Memory and Storage
Video Cards and Graphics
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweakboy View Post
with SSD ,, always gotta do firmware updates and use CrystalDisk. Go this route for speed and reliability and no noise. gl
No you do not have to ALWAYS do FW updates. Unless the manufacturer states it is a 'critical update' (as was the case with the Crucial M4 0009 FW) you really do NOT need to do FW updates. Running crystal disk only checks your performance - which you DO NOT need to do unless you a benchmark junkie or want to prematurely kill your SSD.

Please stop giving misinformation.......
Burner27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 04:42 PM   #20
lambchops511
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 659
Default

If your job depends on it, I wouldn't go with consumer drives. Enterprise drives cost a magnitude more for a reason (e.g., much more validation + higher quality NAND chips).
lambchops511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 05:05 PM   #21
slayernine
Senior Member
 
slayernine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 864
Default

I would recommend a reliable set of Samsung or Intel SSD's. I really think RAID 10 is best for allowing 1-2 drive failures as well as good performance.

If you are looking for that 99.99% uptime sort of goal then you need HA (high availability). Look into VMWare HA, if one server goes down you can switch to backup hardware.

Also backup everything as often as possible because everything made by man will eventually fail.
__________________
minecraft server address: mc.undead.ca (PM for whitelist)

BitFenix Prodigy - i7 4771 - ROG mitx - AMD 7970 - RAID 0 240GB Intel 530 SSD - 3 TB WD Black

Slay3rNin3
slayernine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 05:15 PM   #22
Blain
Lifer
 
Blain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: SW Indiana
Posts: 23,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nk215 View Post
If your job depends on it, mechanical or SSD?

RAID 1 or 5 (for boot drive) is not an option at the moment
I call... "straw man"
__________________
USA...
Too many delicate hothouse flowers
Blain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:46 PM   #23
BonzaiDuck
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 7,187
Default

Some may call me out on this, but technologies like RAM or CPUs (if not abused) either fail early during a burn-in period, or tend to last. I would say that SSDs fall into that category, although there is apparently a finite number of writes that can be made to SSD cells. And to be honest, I'm still not much familiar with how SSDs work . . . but . . .

But. The MTBF for an SLC SSD is supposed to be something like 200 years. The MTBF for MLC SSDs is supposed to be 10 years, or I've seen it stated in millions of hours.

While you could corrupt OS files on an SSD just as with an HDD, I'd feel somewhat less worried about SSD failure on a well-maintained system. That is, the odds of failure seem lower.
BonzaiDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 04:20 AM   #24
Mutant_Guy
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Srilanka
Posts: 43
Default

I will say SSD is reliable than Mechanical HDD. You must use it on other way for all the factors. There are SSD wear indicators / tools available or come with it.
Mutant_Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 12:02 PM   #25
killster1
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 3,393
Default

wow big ass thread.. im interested in the 155,000 array of ssd x25 drives that failed more than mechanical drives. I own a few x25-m 80gb and they have been great fast and flawless.. The main reason of me buying them is little kids can bang on the computer and it the ssds dont mind at all the increased speed is also nice. Im wondering what this guy is even doing that its so mission critical not to have any down time yet refuses to use raid and multiple setups.
__________________
G33iwb
killster1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.