• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OCZ IBIS for enterprise?

I personally would not deploy an OCZ/SF drive in an enterprise environment. Just spend half an hour on the OCZ forums and you'll see why.

Also as this would be connected via Ethernet, even Gig ethernet will throttle the IBIS massively. Obv internal I/O would be fast, but how many users is a small office? Would a single quality SSD not handle it?
 
small office usually means data-closet - not datacenter. these large enterprise units sadly can generate alot of heat - something you may not have addressed. they are not tolerant to overheating at all.
 
A single quality SSD would handle everything, but I'm that significant hell where my boss wants fantastic performance (mostly from what I gather to improve boot times), but does not want to pay the kinds of prices that an intel-based slc drive garners.

I was thinking of over-provisioning an Intel X25-m, take a 120GB drive and make only 60-70GB available, which should boost reliability into the ~200TiB range according to Intel's documents on the matter.

Does anyone know if trim works with Raid-1 in Server 2008 now , or if a VB scripted Intel Toolbox schedule would work.

As for office size, we need to handle ~10 workers querying a 55k record MySql database, over LAN. Plan is to get everyone on to a 1Gbit switch. Right now using a Intel 320 drive (wrong drive bought by someone who didn't know about the 8MB bug), I'm not seeing any improvement in database performance vs Ultra320 SCSI WD drive, over the LAN (100Mbit) for obvious reasons, but nevertheless the boss wants SSD. I have suggested 15k SAS array, but it carries a premium over SSD, with worse performance, and we have so many backups the boss feels that SSD reliability may be good enough that he wants to take a chance.
 
Last edited:
pakotlar said:
A single quality SSD would handle everything, but I'm that significant hell where my boss wants fantastic performance (mostly from what I gather to improve boot times), but does not want to pay the kinds of prices that an intel-based slc drive garners.

I was thinking of over-provisioning an Intel X25-m, take a 120GB drive and make only 60-70GB available, which should boost reliability into the ~200TiB range according to Intel's documents on the matter.

Does anyone know if trim works with Raid-1 in Server 2008 now , or if a VB scripted Intel Toolbox schedule would work.

As for office size, we need to handle ~10 workers querying a 55k record MySql database, over LAN. Plan is to get everyone on to a 1Gbit switch. Right now using a Intel 320 drive (wrong drive bought by someone who didn't know about the 8MB bug), I'm not seeing any improvement in database performance vs Ultra320 SCSI WD drive, over the LAN (100Mbit) for obvious reasons, but nevertheless the boss wants SSD. I have suggested 15k SAS array, but it carries a premium over SSD, with worse performance, and we have so many backups the boss feels that SSD reliability may be good enough that he wants to take a chance.
Click to expand...

From the article, the IBIS can't be used as a boot drive. Maybe it's been changed.

Also, a 55k record Mysql database is tiny. Even if you meant 55M records, it's still not that big.

Unless I'm mistaken, the best solution for better speeds is probably to improve the software/code that deals with the database.
 
aceO07 said:
From the article, the IBIS can't be used as a boot drive. Maybe it's been changed.

Also, a 55k record Mysql database is tiny. Even if you meant 55M records, it's still not that big.

Unless I'm mistaken, the best solution for better speeds is probably to improve the software/code that deals with the database.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. I'm going to put in a LSI megaraid /4*Savvio 10k.2 Raid 10. The LSI has option for "hybrid ssd" caching software, although I'm not sure how much the increase response time really matters, like you said the database is small. Each table is ~5MB, so users should never have performance issues. At least this setup will be reliable, and still can always use an SSD for a boot drive down the road. Thanks for the feedback.
 
Maybe MySQL could be configured to have bigger cache. Also various fields could be indexed. That can help a lot too. Or maybe the code could be improved to reduce the number of queries that gets used. There's probably a solution that doesn't involve getting faster hardware.
 
Your boss is determined to have the database on SSD, or just to have SSD in the server?

You could look at a couple RevoDrives or Z-Drives and configure them with RAID 1 on the chipset. Since your databases are small you can buy the smallest ones so they wouldn't be super expensive. The latest models support TRIM, though putting them into a RAID 1 might negate that.
 
+1 on the mainly software fixes. MySQL has several buffers and caches that can make all the difference in the world, yet the default settings for their sizes tend to be based on low-memory systems. If the MySQL configuration is still set to mostly defaults, check out some guides. It's dead nuts simple to check a few performance counters, and make the related caches and buffers much bigger, if they aren't already big enough. This can help w/o actually changing the software doing the work.
 
depends on what you what you are doing with the database? hard to suggest without knowing but the old rule of throwing log files on fast linear write and database on cheaper raid-5/6 with alot of ram - the sql server wants to immediately write to the longs but will take a few seconds to write to main database file. Adding a metric ton of ram helps ALOT when indexes can stay in ram.

but ETL, data warehouse, etc - unless you build a really sweet ZFS super-caching setup - you probably want to stick to traditional setup.

I'd love to try a zfs server with 2 SLC, 4MLC, 16gb of ram cache and a bunch of sata 2TB drives for database. would be sweet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top