Tim Connors <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2014, Mike O'Connor wrote: > >> If there not Enterprise SAS SSD's they will have issues being in >> array because the firmware is not optimised fir it. The same way as >> standard spinning media drive has issues with being in a raid array >> if its not configured for it. >> >> Never run SSD's in more than a raid mirror, unless the drive actually >> indicates it ok to be used in a RAID. > > [Citation needed] > > It's just data.
I assume he's working from the first principles that 1. the FTL will be optimized for FAT (or maybe NTFS), because that's what "normal" people put on it, and 2. a RAID5/6 workload doesn't look like a FAT workload. In the same way that in a spinning rust drive, "enterprise" or "NAS" firmwares are better because they are programmed to give up QUICKLY -- so the RAID controller can go "oh OK" and grab the block from another disk. (Also maybe they have tighter QA controls, but meh.) If it's for a super duper RDBMS cluster or something, the suboptimal performance might matter, but if it's just serving office documents then nobody is going to give a shit. Just give it a bunch more RAM so it can cache the most popular disk blocks. _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
