Betr.: [OT] MailScanner and SSDs

[Christopher Fisk]

>  2009/10/26 <Amelein at dantumadiel.eu>
>  >
>  > Considering the limited amount of writes you have on an
>  SSD still I'd say that using SSD's for an MTA would not
>  be the best idea.
>  > Mail servers handle lots of tiny files so in that view
>  SSD's would be perfect with their low access times,
>  everything is possible as long as you stuff enough money
>  into it :-)
>  > If its just for archiving I'd suggest a raid 5 or 6
>  array with cheap sata disks. (5 can handle 1 disk
>  failure, 6 can handle 2, add hot spares depending on how
>  secure you want the data)
>  > I think the same principals apply as for a fileserver,
>  it depends on how much file IO you are expecting to have
>  and the kind of data on it.
>  >
>  (snip)
>  Well, sure the SSD will suffer from a limited amount of
>  writes, but
>  the whole point of using one would be to gain
>  performance, and to do
>  so where it counts the most. Which means actually using
>  the thing for
>  write-intense things.
>  The similar thing for an Oracle DB, for example, would be
>  to put all
>  control files and UNDO/REDO on the SSD
>  (counterintuitively... goes
>  against any OFA recomendations of old:-).
>  Using them for read-intense things would be nice to, but
>  a large
>  factor less productive, from a performance perspective.

>  One could reason that when one moves to having stuff on
>  an SSD, one
>  has moved up the budget ladder... So having to buy new
>  ones from time
>  to time wouldn't be a problem;-):-)

If performance is that much of an issue for you where you are willing to burn through SSD's like that, you would be much better off switching the work directory to RAMDISK and putting the money you would put into SSD's into UPS's.

Faster, won't wear out nearly as fast and cheaper, since you probably have the UPS's in place already.


Christopher Fisk

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.