Re: [pfSense] Soeckris Net5501 SSD

[Karl Fife]

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 SS

Re: [pfSense] Soeckris Net5501 SSD

[Steve Yates]

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 h

Re: [pfSense] Soeckris Net5501 SSD

[Karl Fife]

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  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_Future )

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

Re: [pfSense] Soeckris Net5501 SSD

[ED Fochler]

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  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_Future )
> 
> 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