Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1

    SSD or HDD for mysql server?

    Hi all

    How about SSD's these days? Are they became reliable as disk drives?

    Wondering what to choose: 4 x 250GB WD RE4 drives running in RAID10 or 2 x Intel 320 80GB series running in RAID1

    The speed, the price and performance for these 2 systems is almost identical.

    What would you choose?

    And most importantly: is is true that rumor that SSD drives are loosing space when time goes? And other negative information about SSD drives?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    chicago
    Posts
    1,557
    the 2 ssd's in raid 1 will be alot faster then the raid 10 array.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    With MySQL generally you'd want IOPS and you're going to get a LOT more IOPS out of an SSD than any mechanical drive. SSDs, when they fail, tend to just suddenly quit working so I wouldn't run a single drive or raid0 for anything production.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    L.A., CA
    Posts
    3,706
    The 120/160GB Intel 320 Series have a lot higher performance then the 80GBs, FYI.
    Though the 80GB's themselves will be a lot faster already than the HDDs

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,200
    2 Intel 320s in RAID1 easily if disk space isn't an issue.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Orien View Post
    2 Intel 320s in RAID1 easily if disk space isn't an issue.
    Those range from 40GB capacity all the way up to around 500GB or 600GB, right?

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Those range from 40GB capacity all the way up to around 500GB or 600GB, right?

    -mike
    Yep, 40GB to 600GB but the 300 and 600GB ones are quite expensive.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Panama
    Posts
    265
    The 2 ssd in raid 1 will beat them in performance, they would be more reliable, and you will save in electricity and heat. Try to find 5 years warranty on them.
    Offshore Hosting & High Privacy in Panama
    OnApp Cloud Servers & Shared Web Hosting | Daily Backups | 99.9% Uptime
    www.OffshoreRacks.com

  9. #9
    Thanks for information. However what about that rumor that SSD drives are loosing space when time goes? I believe it is due to bad sectors? Anyone here running SDD for 3+ years or more? Has the size changed? Have you lost any data on SSD due to bad sectors?

    SDD is like flash memory. And flash memory, unlike HDD has a limited write count right and then sector dies?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by YouHosting View Post
    Thanks for information. However what about that rumor that SSD drives are loosing space when time goes? I believe it is due to bad sectors? Anyone here running SDD for 3+ years or more? Has the size changed? Have you lost any data on SSD due to bad sectors?

    SDD is like flash memory. And flash memory, unlike HDD has a limited write count right and then sector dies?
    SSD's have extra sectors to repair the died sectors.
    Regards,
    Yourwebhoster.eu [NL] based hosting
    Shared | Reseller | KVM VPS | Reseller VPS

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    919
    On a server with 4 x 1TB Barracuda 12 RAID10, I had a lot of slow queries at certain times of day.

    I decided to migrate to a 2 x 120GB SSD RAID1 for the OS and MySQL. Today with more load than in the old server, the slow queries no longer exist.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    133
    I have had many problems with the Intel SSD 510s running MySQL on a pair of Dell production databases.

    We added a LSI Megaraid 9280-8E card to our R710s and connected that to a couple of JBODs over mini-SAS.

    We have one SSD 510 that was DOA and the remaining four SSDs timing out on the channel.

    Intel has been a major PITA to deal with and their toolbox system only runs on Windows.

    We're looking into some differences between vendors and their reserved space on the SSDs. Turns out these are lower than we need in terms of set aside space and unable to keep up with heavy writes in our configuration.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    L.A., CA
    Posts
    3,706
    You should migrate to the 320 Series. The 510 series is for enthusiasts.
    The 310 series has been engineered for more server-use type environments.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by YouHosting View Post
    Thanks for information. However what about that rumor that SSD drives are loosing space when time goes?
    Flash has a limited number of write cycles. However, a good SSD uses wear-leveling algorithms so that when you update a block, it can actually write the changes somewhere else on the SSD, thus preventing hotspots. A good SSD also takes measures to reduce the effects of write amplification, and has plenty of reserved cells. Unless you're using a very write-heavy application, something like an Intel 320 should last you for years.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    We have one SSD 510 that was DOA and the remaining four SSDs timing out on the channel.
    Unfortunately, the 510 was an inappropriate choice. I would replace them with 320s immediately.


    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    Intel has been a major PITA to deal with and their toolbox system only runs on Windows.
    If you just want to do a Secure Erase, or issue a SET MAX ADDRESS command, you can do that from hdparm on Linux.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    We're looking into some differences between vendors and their reserved space on the SSDs. Turns out these are lower than we need in terms of set aside space and unable to keep up with heavy writes in our configuration.
    You can use the above-mentioned SET MAX ADDRESS command to increase the reserved space. You'll need to issue a Secure Erase command to the SSD first, so that it can mark those blocks as unused. If you're going to use MLC SSDs in a server, it's a good best practice to do this, so you could for example buy a 160GB SSD and then set its maximum address at 128GB.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    555
    As long as you get a SLC (310 I think is SLC?) SSD you should be good.

    I was seeing I/O being maxed out on a 6 disk raid10 array (granted only 7200 RPM SATA disks) doing rrdtool updates to rrd files used for ganglia monitoring over 1000 servers. The problem was due to the heavy randomness and small writes. I moved everything to a 32GB SLC intel x25-E SSD and %util on the raid array went from 90-100% all the time to 2%.

    The machine has now been in production for well over a year and over 120TB has been written to the drive without any problems. The MLC SSD's can be very problematic for write-heavy applications (like MySQL can be). I would say definitely go the SSD route if your getting SLC SSD's.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,583
    310 series is all MLC.

    We've got a few of the new intel drives in various servers.. still not proving to be reliable. Not a single x25-e has dropped and we've had a 40% failure rate on the new generation intel drives.

    Theres a reason they cost 5x more guys!
    'Ripcord'ing is the only way!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Visbits View Post
    310 series is all MLC.

    We've got a few of the new intel drives in various servers.. still not proving to be reliable. Not a single x25-e has dropped and we've had a 40% failure rate on the new generation intel drives.

    Theres a reason they cost 5x more guys!
    Your failure rate is 40% on which new generation? The 310 series is an mSATA connection where as the 320 series is the new mainstream 2.5" SATA II SSD from Intel.

    Please advise.

  19. #19
    SSD is super speed. vote it

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Visbits View Post
    310 series is all MLC.

    We've got a few of the new intel drives in various servers.. still not proving to be reliable. Not a single x25-e has dropped and we've had a 40% failure rate on the new generation intel drives.

    Theres a reason they cost 5x more guys!
    Intel claims it has only 0.5% failure rate for SSD, how come you get 40%?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by YouHosting View Post
    Intel claims it has only 0.5% failure rate for SSD, how come you get 40%?
    Because we beat on drives a lot harder than intel??? Hell if I know. Most of our environment is constant mysql write/update, we sustain nearly maximum write capacity of the disk.

    Our testing was on the 320 series, 310 is the mobile internal connector.
    'Ripcord'ing is the only way!

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by Visbits View Post
    Because we beat on drives a lot harder than intel??? Hell if I know.

    Our testing was on the 320 series, 310 is the mobile internal connector.
    Did you RMA the failed drives? Obviously you got unlucky.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    526
    Not a single x25-e has dropped and we've had a 40% failure rate on the new generation intel drives.
    Was wondering to what extent the drives went bad.
    Did you check if the data on the bad drives was still readable?


    Quote Originally Posted by YouHosting View Post
    Intel claims it has only 0.5% failure rate for SSD, how come you get 40%?
    The 0.4% figure is for the 2nd generation X25-M, of which they sold over a million.
    Think it is a bit early for any claim on failure stats for the 320.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    59

    Raid 1

    Most system admins will be wise to tell you to go with the SSL in Raid 1.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Nelson View Post
    Did you RMA the failed drives? Obviously you got unlucky.
    No we returned them and replaced them with x25-e.. its pretty obvious that luck had nothing to do with it and the drives were simply not good enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxnet View Post
    Was wondering to what extent the drives went bad.
    Did you check if the data on the bad drives was still readable?
    They would show up at boot then disappear the first time they got scanned for partition tables ect.
    'Ripcord'ing is the only way!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    L.A., CA
    Posts
    3,706

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,583
    Quote Originally Posted by CGotzmann View Post
    Had 0 failures so far on over 25+ Intel 320 Series SSD's.
    Must be some idle systems
    'Ripcord'ing is the only way!

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Visbits View Post
    Because we beat on drives a lot harder than intel??? Hell if I know. Most of our environment is constant mysql write/update, we sustain nearly maximum write capacity of the disk.
    For your situation, SLC flash definitely makes sense. If you're saturating the bandwidth, you can theoretically wear out a 320 in a matter of days. Intel's specs for using a 320 in a server rate them for about 60TB of random 4K writes, and that's for the 600GB size SSD.

    With that said, I think the MLC-based Intel 320 drives are more than suitable for most servers. In your particular case, you're pounding the heck out of your storage, so they won't last.

    http://download.intel.com/design/flash/nand/325170.pdf
    Last edited by bqinternet; 06-05-2011 at 12:09 AM.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    526
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    If you're saturating the bandwidth, you can theoretically wear out a 320 in a matter of days. Intel's specs for using a 320 in a server rate them for about 60TB of random 4K writes, and that's for the 600GB size SSD.
    Even with the X25-E SLC drives you can still run out of endurance (1 PB) in less than 3 months, if you really are using that bandwidth.
    A RAM disk would probably be more useful for such use case.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,945
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    Unfortunately, the 510 was an inappropriate choice. I would replace them with 320s immediately.




    If you just want to do a Secure Erase, or issue a SET MAX ADDRESS command, you can do that from hdparm on Linux.



    You can use the above-mentioned SET MAX ADDRESS command to increase the reserved space. You'll need to issue a Secure Erase command to the SSD first, so that it can mark those blocks as unused. If you're going to use MLC SSDs in a server, it's a good best practice to do this, so you could for example buy a 160GB SSD and then set its maximum address at 128GB.
    Nice post, Scott. You seem to be a pretty good source of information on SSD usage.

    Are you using SSD much with BQ Backup, or in other contexts instead...? (I imagine that SSD would be a bit pricey for backup server storage space, so I'm assuming other contexts?)

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    Are you using SSD much with BQ Backup, or in other contexts instead...?
    We use 7200RPM SAS drives for the backup storage, so the SSDs are just for our Xen servers (which we don't publicly sell VMs on).

    We're in the process of upgrading our standard VM storage from 15K SAS drives to hybrid arrays where one side of the mirror is an SSD, and the other side is a 2.5" 7200RPM SAS drive. Writes go to both, but reads come from the SSD. Small bursts of writes still benefit from the RAID controller's NVRAM, and larger writes are no problem for the 7200RPM drive.

    The cost of doing the hybrid configuration is very competitive with doing pure 15K SAS drives, but the read IOPS performance is magnitudes better. The odd write-heavy VM can go on pure SSD storage, while mass storage can use the 7200RPM hard drives. It basically gives us 3 storage tiers, using 2 kinds of storage devices.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    We use 7200RPM SAS drives for the backup storage, so the SSDs are just for our Xen servers (which we don't publicly sell VMs on).

    We're in the process of upgrading our standard VM storage from 15K SAS drives to hybrid arrays where one side of the mirror is an SSD, and the other side is a 2.5" 7200RPM SAS drive. Writes go to both, but reads come from the SSD. Small bursts of writes still benefit from the RAID controller's NVRAM, and larger writes are no problem for the 7200RPM drive.

    The cost of doing the hybrid configuration is very competitive with doing pure 15K SAS drives, but the read IOPS performance is magnitudes better. The odd write-heavy VM can go on pure SSD storage, while mass storage can use the 7200RPM hard drives. It basically gives us 3 storage tiers, using 2 kinds of storage devices.
    How do you configure reads to just go from the SSD?

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    8,945
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    We use 7200RPM SAS drives for the backup storage, so the SSDs are just for our Xen servers (which we don't publicly sell VMs on).

    We're in the process of upgrading our standard VM storage from 15K SAS drives to hybrid arrays where one side of the mirror is an SSD, and the other side is a 2.5" 7200RPM SAS drive. Writes go to both, but reads come from the SSD. Small bursts of writes still benefit from the RAID controller's NVRAM, and larger writes are no problem for the 7200RPM drive.

    The cost of doing the hybrid configuration is very competitive with doing pure 15K SAS drives, but the read IOPS performance is magnitudes better. The odd write-heavy VM can go on pure SSD storage, while mass storage can use the 7200RPM hard drives. It basically gives us 3 storage tiers, using 2 kinds of storage devices.
    That's pretty cool. I hope that you do / will advertise all of that, as I imagine (?) that you have some competitors using mere SATA storage...

    -mike
    Mike G. - Limestone Networks - Account Specialist
    Cloud - Dedicated - Colocation - Premium Network - Passionate Support
    DDoS Protection Available - Reseller Program @LimestoneInc - 877.586.0555

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by bqinternet View Post
    Unfortunately, the 510 was an inappropriate choice. I would replace them with 320s immediately.
    Could you explain this in more detail? The 510s were my first foray into SSD technology and I chose them because they offered a faster SATA connection (6 Gbps versus 3 for the Intel 320s).

    We've also selected some Samsumg 470s, how will those stack up?

    Again, we're using these for MySQL storage, currently only for the MySQL slave but we'd eventually like to use them for the master as well.

    Thanks.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    4,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Zach Nelson View Post
    How do you configure reads to just go from the SSD?
    It's a feature of the RAID card that we use:

    http://www.adaptec.com/en-us/_common/hybrid-raid/

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike - Limestone View Post
    That's pretty cool. I hope that you do / will advertise all of that, as I imagine (?) that you have some competitors using mere SATA storage...
    We don't currently have plans to sell a cloud service, but we do pretty much have a private cloud for internal use, and various friends and colleagues use it too. Backups are our real business, and most of our customer are in the hosting industry, so I don't want to start competing with customers. I just like to play around with cool toys on the side

    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    Could you explain this in more detail? The 510s were my first foray into SSD technology and I chose them because they offered a faster SATA connection (6 Gbps versus 3 for the Intel 320s).
    I see the 510 as targeting the PC hobbyist market (i.e. people that would say, "Oooh, 6Gbps!"). For server usage with a lot of random I/O, I don't see the 6Gbps vs. 3Gbps difference as a big deal. If you compare the specs for the 510 vs. the 320, you'll see that the 320 is rated for much higher IOPS. For a typical server, that makes the 320 a better choice for performance.

    Besides the higher IOPS rating, the 320 also has several reliability features, such as capacitors that flush the cache on power loss. The other big difference is that the 510 uses a Marvell controller, which may be fine, but the 320 uses Intel's proven controller from the X25 series.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    We've also selected some Samsumg 470s, how will those stack up?
    I'm not familiar with them. You'll probably find that a lot of people on this board won't touch anything other than Intel SSDs. That's not to say that everything else is bad, especially more recently. It's just that Intel has earned a reputation for having reliable SSDs for server use.

    Quote Originally Posted by dmst View Post
    Again, we're using these for MySQL storage, currently only for the MySQL slave but we'd eventually like to use them for the master as well.
    It really depends on how much writing you're doing. It's important to look at the endurance specs for the SSD that you want to use. If you're doing several MB/s of small writes all day long, you might want SLC flash instead of MLC.
    Last edited by bqinternet; 06-05-2011 at 06:18 PM.
    Scott Burns, President
    BQ Internet Corporation
    Remote Rsync and FTP backup solutions
    *** http://www.bqbackup.com/ ***

  36. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by YouHosting View Post
    Hi all

    How about SSD's these days? Are they became reliable as disk drives?

    Wondering what to choose: 4 x 250GB WD RE4 drives running in RAID10 or 2 x Intel 320 80GB series running in RAID1

    The speed, the price and performance for these 2 systems is almost identical.

    What would you choose?

    And most importantly: is is true that rumor that SSD drives are loosing space when time goes? And other negative information about SSD drives?

    Choose SSD for MySQL server. It will perform much faster.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 06:35 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-09-2010, 03:11 AM
  3. SSD HDD?
    By Eiv in forum Colocation and Data Centers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 05:05 PM
  4. Intel SSD or Raptor HDD
    By HostingFields in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-02-2010, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •