From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FA2C1381F3 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:27:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFB46E08A6; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:27:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5615E084C for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F8D11805C for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=libertytrek.org; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= libertytrek.org; bh=JzrLM7lWT4qmHs4UujrqZlr1MxM=; b=k03xk9qe5MSZ tyYAphmUAqEuR4IRKOa9zNB7ZAeerH08Sn4dGPxuF0NJTA0VwaBQ43IVl5Y/YCnX Wy5ir9hJCkzJY4NQ/ohecd6VVpbyOjyzfe1WhVWTrtiEXpelyLGE+4N/uCBZ7SWO pW5y4+dWEPC0rxuOe/ZHl2fEn57C/9w= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [159.63.145.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tanstaafl@libertytrek.org) by homiemail-a44.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70D72118057 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 07:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51EA9E29.10008@libertytrek.org> Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 10:26:49 -0400 From: Tanstaafl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: SSDs, VM SANs & RAID - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] SSD partitioning and migration References: <20130718182232.5c1301ce@acme7.acmenet> <20130719114234.332ff09e@acme7.acmenet> <51E96CBB.4080300@gmail.com> <201307191945.46099.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 89b4f99e-ba1a-46a9-bca5-2742269aa1e4 X-Archives-Hash: 796ba535ccbd603770811ceba81b0c98 On 2013-07-19 3:02 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: > I think you are. Unless you are moving massive terabytes of data > across your drive on a constant basis I would not worry about regular > everyday write activity being a problem. I have a question regarding the use of SSDs in a VM SAN... We are considering buying a lower-end SAN (two actually, one for each of our locations), with lots of 2.5" bays, and using SSDs. The two questions that come to mind are: Is this a good use of SSDs? I honestly don't know if the running VMs would benefit from the faster IO or not (I *think* the answer is a resounding yes)? Next is RAID... I've avoided RAID5 (and RAID6) like the plague ever since I almost got bit really badly by a multiple drive failure... luckily, the RAID5 had just finished rebuilding successfully after the first drive failed, before the second drive failed. I can't tell you how many years I aged that day while it was rebuilding after replacing the second failed drive. Ever since, I've always used RAID10. So... with SSDs, I think another advantage would be much faster rebuilds after a failed drive? So I could maybe start using RAID6 (would survive two simultaneous disk failures), and not lose so much available storage (50% with RAID10)? Last... while researching this, I ran across a very interesting article that I'd appreciate hearing opinions on. "The Benefits of a Flash Only, SAN-less Virtual Architecture": http://www.storage-switzerland.com/Articles/Entries/2012/9/20_The_Benefits_of_a_Flash_Only,_SAN-less_Virtual_Architecture.html or http://tinyurl.com/khwuspo Anyway, I look forward to hearing thoughts on this...