Noteworthy differences between the 3700 and 3500 series, and a nod to
the 710:
Both the 3500 and 3700 have capacitor-backed write cache, so power
events are unlikely to be cataclysmic, but the 3700 series has roughly
42x better write endurance than the 3500.
Intel publishes that the 80GB 3500 is good for 45 TB (same as the 3510).
By contrast, they publish that the 100GB 3700 is good for 1874 TB. This
is apparently due to a suite of technologies called HET, which includes
differences in both silicon and the controller. The older 710 series
share this HET technology (and share capacitor-backed write cache), but
the 710 drive I/O is slower, ergo, so is the cost, possibly making the
710 a better value in terms of pursuing marginally higher reliability.
Neither the 3510, nor the 710 have what Intel calls End-to-End Data
Protection, which just appears to be parity on steroids. Opinions
welcome on this, but I would be surprised if the the susceptibility to
bit rot on an datacenter-grade SSD did not already far exceed that of a
CF card. As such, the 710 seems like it may be an affordable little
corner in the realm of SSD drive overkill for a pfSense install.
-Karl
On 5/18/2016 1:35 PM, Steve Yates wrote:
The Intel S37xx is their data center line right? We've had some weird stuff in
Windows and Linux servers get fixed by drive firmware updates. There have been
multiple updates since fall 2015. Weird as in the Intel software in Windows
showed both drives in a RAID 1 failed, though Windows could still read and
write to that drive letter. Based on the Linux errors I suspect the drives
were temporarily dropping out and/or taking too long to access.
That said, I know you were asking for real world experience, but Intel does
list reliability and drive write life specs for their SSDs if you open the PDFs
on their site. They do list compressed read and write speeds for some drives
so be careful what table you're reading.
--
Steve Yates
ITS, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: List [mailto:list-boun...@lists.pfsense.org] On Behalf Of Karl Fife
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 1:18 PM
To: pfSense Support and Discussion Mailing List <list@lists.pfsense.org>
Subject: Re: [pfSense] Soeckris Net5501 SSD
Ed, you said it well here: "wear leveling work is in SATA and DOM"
I think this is an important point, because If I understand correctly, there is
nothing inherent to DOM or SATA to make it more or less suitable to the
excellent implementations we've seen of over-provisioning, wear-leveling etc.
in the other storage form factors.
As you say though, that's were the work is taking place, so if you want it, DOM
and SATA appear to be the devices to use. Funny how that works, but it appears
to be market forces only, not technology which informs this detail.
Thanks too for the info on the Soekris 6501. I have one in the feild, also
with an MSata module. I'm really glad I didn't try to upgrade that in place,
or I might be talking ethyl the 60-year-old office manager through
router-resurrection. Fun. You just saved my bacon. Thanks for that.
In the realm of SSD's I have been using Intel S37xx's as ZFS intent log
accelerators for as long as they've been available. Great devices. Some
installs have seen many terabytes of writes per week for years without issue.
For a pfSense install, it's an absurd amount of overkill.
Still, as you say, 'pro grade' SSD's are a mere $50, so 'pro' SSD's start to
become an economical choice.
In particular, I see the Intel S35x0 ~80GB for $60. Do you know if the
reliability is in the same league as the s3700 series, it would be an easy
choice given the high cost of downtime in a remote install. Any experience
with that series of devices in particular?
Thanks a lot Ed. Your input was exactly what I was looking for!
-Karl
On 5/18/2016 10:11 AM, ED Fochler wrote:
Karl,
There are numerous other similar answers to be found, but here’s mine:
Get away from CF if you can. The modern performance and wear leveling work is
in sata and DOM, those are better devices. Abandon the nano-BSD and just find
the miscellaneous checkbox to put /tmp and /var in ram. That’s the bulk of the
benefit without the separate distribution. Although that is seldom necessary
any more either.
My Soekris 6501 still doesn’t like the upgrade to PFSense 2.3 on mSata, but I’m
running one from a Sata disk on 2.3 just fine. This problem seems Soekris
specific, but my summary is still that sata seems to be where the support is. And
with SSD, I don’t see any benefit to staying away from sata even if you are
allergic to spinning disks. Market forces have made 100GB SSD’s available for
less than $50, and that’s some wild over-provisioning for an install that is happy
in < 4GB. You can get a nice Intel or “pro” samsung for a little more if you
want more insurance against having to visit those devices. I’m generally a fan of
the SSDs with metal cases for heat dissipation.
ED.
On 2016, May 17, at 6:09 PM, Karl Fife <karlf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have about 15 Net5501's OR Lanner FW-7541D's in the field running
embedded/Nano on CF cards. There's not enough space on a 1GB CF to
upgrade to v2.3. Of course I can upgrade to larger CF cards, however
the eventual phase-out of NanoBSD makes me wonder if it's better to
install a SATA SSD (or SATA DOM) which would possibly eliminate the
need to re-re-factor storage in the near future (e.g with the release
of v 2.4, and the phase-out of NanoBSD:
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide#Planning_for_the_Futu
re )
Question:
I'd like to ask what solid-state storage others are using on non-NanoBSD installs. If
running the "full" version of pfSense, Is it sufficient 'simply' to use a
quality wear-leveling SATA DOM, or is it recommended to use something with even better
write endurance? I wouldn't have thought the pfSense write load is high, but blog posts
from early adopters of SSD's + pfSense seem to have run into write endurance problems.
SSD's have improved greatly especially in terms of wear-leveling, over-provisioning etc..
What's a recommended non-disk drive for full pfSense these days?
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold
_______________________________________________
pfSense mailing list
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Support the project with Gold! https://pfsense.org/gold