Results 1 to 21 of 21
-
01-26-2014, 12:22 PM #1Junior Guru Wannabe
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Posts
- 54
SSD Storage? Worth the expensive?
Hello,
Just thought I would throw out a question to you guys! SSD hosting is more expensive than normal hard drive hosting, resulting in SSD packages offering less space for the same money as normal hard drive hosting. Do people actually prefer to pay extra for SSD? Do you think your customers actually look for SSD hosting? and do you actually see a different in website speed?
Your experience would be appreciated!
Ross
-
01-26-2014, 12:28 PM #2Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Posts
- 2,103
SSD hard drives are more expensive to purchase, hence more expense, they also typically have less storage space than normal HDD (therefore less clients per server, a HDD server might fit double the amount of clients that a SSD server will in terms of storage space, so more costs for the hosts running SSD as they require more servers).
SSD is definitely worth it if you're running sites based upon MySQL, PHP etc, you'd notice an increase in site performance definitely. If you're running a pure HTML site, the performance difference isn't noticed as much, if at all.█ Clouveo - SSD/NVMe Cloud VPS & Web Hosting
█ Cloud VPS Servers | DDoS Protected | Snapshots | Auto Backups | One Click Apps | Custom ISOs
█ clouveo.com | Locations: [UK] London, [NL] Amsterdam, [US] Los Angeles
-
01-26-2014, 12:56 PM #3
SSD Hosting is getting more and more common in the hosting industry. Providers are starting to offer more disk space for web hosting plans on SSD based storage. A number of budget providers such as CrocWeb use Pure SSD, can't think of anyone else of the top of my head who are the same.
~]# Ethernet Servers Ltd - Est. 2014! - sales @ ethernetservers.com
~]# Try out our WordPress speed tests for yourself!
~]# NVMe Web Hosting | Unmanaged VPS | Fully Managed VPS | Dedicated Servers | Domain Names
~]# Don't settle for any less than the very best - come & join our family today!
-
01-26-2014, 01:15 PM #4Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- LocalHost
- Posts
- 1,317
I find SSD really useful. Its expensive but it worth.
█ YagHost - Fast Reliable Hosting Since 2009
█ Managed VPS - NVMe DirectAdmin
█ Web Hosting - NVMe SSD, AMD EPYC, 10 Gbps (US, Europe, Singapore)
-
01-26-2014, 02:31 PM #5Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
- Location
- Charlotte, NC, US
- Posts
- 513
Yes. People do look for SSD hosting as they are more reliable in terms of speed. Most hosting companies uses SSD harddisk on game server for better gaming. Very few use the SSD hard disk for normal web hosting. But If you have a demand you can go for a dedicated server with SSD hosting.
ⓐ➒AlphaNine
✿Shared hosting | cPanel/WHM reseller | KVM VPS | Dedicated Servers | SSL | VoIP | Management |
✿99.9% uptime | 24/7 Support | Easy Control Panels | Operating Since 2000 |
-
01-26-2014, 06:02 PM #6Newbie
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Morrisville, NC
- Posts
- 5
SSD is worth to pay extra for MyISAM tables.
Or if you use InnoDB and the buffer pool is much smaller than the database size.
There are many cases when InnoDB tables small enough to fit into RAM (and a lot of RAM is not rare because it's cheap).
In that case SSD makes less difference comparing to HDD.
--
<< signature should be configured in your member profile >>Last edited by net; 01-26-2014 at 06:20 PM.
-
01-26-2014, 06:15 PM #7The Linux Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- /root
- Posts
- 23,991
My recommendation is to offer both if you can't provide the same high storage as regular drives.
Specially 4 U
Reseller Hosting: Boost Your Websites | Fully Managed KVM VPS: 3.20 - 5.00 Ghz, Pure Dedicated Power
JoneSolutions.Com is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions, server management and services since 2001
Debian|Ubuntu|cPanel|DirectAdmin|Enhance|Webuzo|Acronis|Estela|BitNinja|Nginx
-
01-26-2014, 07:20 PM #8Retired Moderator
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- San Francisco
- Posts
- 7,325
If you care about performance, then SSD is a no-brainer.
-
01-26-2014, 08:20 PM #9Disabled
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Global
- Posts
- 1,642
-
01-26-2014, 08:58 PM #10Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 258
-
01-26-2014, 09:03 PM #11The Linux Specialist
- Join Date
- Mar 2003
- Location
- /root
- Posts
- 23,991
Specially 4 U
Reseller Hosting: Boost Your Websites | Fully Managed KVM VPS: 3.20 - 5.00 Ghz, Pure Dedicated Power
JoneSolutions.Com is on the net 24/7 providing stable and reliable web hosting solutions, server management and services since 2001
Debian|Ubuntu|cPanel|DirectAdmin|Enhance|Webuzo|Acronis|Estela|BitNinja|Nginx
-
01-26-2014, 10:58 PM #12Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- New York City
- Posts
- 5,169
SSD is Avery great feature when it comes to web hosting. Not everyone knows about it and those who do tend to like and use it. I personally think it truly does make a difference with loading times. If you have a decent size data base and lots of php scripts or files then SSD and your site will do well with each other. SSD is also another niche if you look at it. It does improve a lot of things when it comes to housing and SSD but regular hard drives do get the job done.
I think you'll see a difference someone should put it to a test and let everyone see for themselves.
-
01-26-2014, 11:02 PM #13Web Hosting Evangelist
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Posts
- 532
Just some numbers:
Regular 7200rpm HDD makes around 110 random read/write operation per second, while SSD does 50 000 - 100 000, so yes, the difference is HUGE.Alnitech.com - dedicated servers for your business
Dedicated Servers , Disaster Recovery, IaaS, BGP Announcement & More.
✓ 24x7 h/w Support & Server Monitoring
✓ 21-day Money-back Guarantee
-
01-26-2014, 11:02 PM #14Web Hosting Industry Expert
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Indiana, USA
- Posts
- 19,196
SSD Cached storage is a happy medium IMHO.
So long as there's enough SSD cache [I've found 200gb+ is fine, 400gb+ is better] you'll have a large enough set of cached data that hits to the disks will generally only happen for data that changes constantly or for sites that are extremely un-busy in that they don't end up staying in cache.
That said - even on servers with 1~2TB of storage used - the working set of data is considerably smaller.
I'm personally waiting on enterprise 1TB+ SSDs to become more mainstream/come down in price. The initial cost isn't such a huge deal if you own the gear as it just means a longer ROI but you will, eventually, ROI but there's no way I'm going to pay more for a single drive than I do for the whole rest of the server.
It's just a matter of time before we reach that point.█ Michael Denney - MDDHosting.com - Proudly hosting more than 37,700 websites since 2007.
█ Ultra-Fast Cloud Shared and Pay-By-Use Reseller Hosting Powered by LiteSpeed!
█ cPanel • Free SSL • 100% Uptime SLA • 24/7 Support
█ Class-leading support that responds in minutes, not days.
-
01-26-2014, 11:19 PM #15Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 593
Depends on what you are hosting and its requirements. Everyone can tell you to go with SSD, but is it necessary?
Depending on needs, you could go with a basic sata hard drive with plenty of space and use the extra money to throw into ram. Then use varnish, memcache, and any other memory based service to stop the need of access to the disk.
-
01-26-2014, 11:27 PM #16WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Posts
- 111
I run an store with 3000 products - MySQL and PHP - didn't see much difference I must say. I've tried the SSD for a month now, and asked my host to be "downgraded" to normal disk. To me it simply wasn't worth it. Almost similar load times.
Last edited by bindner; 01-26-2014 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Spellingh error
-
01-26-2014, 11:33 PM #17Disabled
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Global
- Posts
- 1,642
That's extremely surprising, as we've seen noticeable improvements to PHP and MySQL even on much smaller sites, to give the impression it wasn't worth it, I'd wonder about the health of that providers SSD array because to not notice speed improvements in something like MySQL is strange, when it generally massively increases it. Load times aren't a good indication though when judging SSD - a load time will give you little information about MySQL response (unless you're talking about MySQL response times).
If you're already running most off RAM though, then I imagine it'd be fairly fast anyway.Last edited by iexo; 01-26-2014 at 11:36 PM.
-
01-27-2014, 12:03 AM #18WHT Addict
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Posts
- 111
As far as resources on the VPS it was already overkill - plenty of leftover resources, which you (@iexo) say could be the reason that SSD wasn't noticeable? If you can't judge SSD on load times, what are you supposed to judge by?
-
01-27-2014, 12:33 AM #19Disabled
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Global
- Posts
- 1,642
For PHP and MySQL load time won't indicate much at all - because those aspects don't make a big difference to the reported load speed and it's too easily affected by the network. Things like MySQL are measured in response time (for example Google's "loaded 235634 results in 0.00000001 seconds").
Overall anything designed to test is generally not accurate, because real-world usage is all that matters - I will point out though that by default MySQL is not configured to be quick, so even on SSD a badly configured MySQL setup won't perform well.
On a default HDD MySQL setup in the past I found it common to submit something, then still have to refresh the page again to see it because the query was in a disk IO queue - over the years I've seen this a hell of a lot, where-as with SSD you'd struggle to hit that same bottleneck.
I think the main point is, if you don't get noticeable results you probably aren't going to - but the facts show that SSD is faster than HDD for database actions and disk compiling, but if the speed constraints of HDD don't affect you then excellent.
Edit: As an example, upon clicking submit on here I was waiting 4-5 seconds - if that's down to disk IO then SSD would benefit massively.
In regards to your resources, if you use RAM caching that will increase your overall speed which could make SSD much less noticeable (same technology).Last edited by iexo; 01-27-2014 at 12:38 AM.
-
01-27-2014, 11:21 AM #20Newbie
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Morrisville, NC
- Posts
- 5
Right.
People should realize when one could benefit from SSD the most.
The answer is - when you're limited by random IO.
If your stuff fits in RAM (either database in buffer pool or files in file system cache) then SSD makes less difference.
Of course, SSD will be better almost in all cases. Just not twice better.
-
01-27-2014, 11:29 AM #21Web Hosting Guru
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- Dhaka, Bangladesh.
- Posts
- 300
it really worth the price if you are running mysql based sites and want your site load faster.
Similar Threads
-
4 vCPUs/1GB RAM/40GB SSD/Managed: $10/m — Fully Optimized, SSD storage, 24x7 Support
By vx|brian in forum VPS Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 10-16-2013, 10:48 AM -
4 vCPUs/1GB RAM/40GB SSD/Managed: $10/m — Fully Optimized, SSD storage, 24x7 Support
By vx|brian in forum VPS Hosting OffersReplies: 0Last Post: 10-07-2013, 11:16 AM -
Need fast (maybe SSD) host, not too expensive, very low bandwidth and storage needs
By sshanky in forum Web HostingReplies: 4Last Post: 07-28-2013, 06:16 PM -
Touch Support? Worth the money or 2 expensive?
By joephill in forum Running a Web Hosting BusinessReplies: 7Last Post: 04-17-2005, 05:43 PM