On Mar 11, 2021, at 20:15, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Have you looked at something like this for fast storage/cache :
>
> https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL4M20GB/
> https://www.amazon.de/ASRock-Ultra-Quad-Controller-Karte-PCI-Express/dp/B079TQ9C6Q/ref=sr_1_6
>
> Setting these up in
On Mar 15, 2021, at 09:50, Steven Smith wrote:
> SSD RAID offers speed and fault tolerance.
Sure. That either wasn't available or was not within what I was willing to
spend in 2016 when I set up this system.
> Simple options that are tolerant to a single disk failure are:
>
> •
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
Thanks for including this information - it's similar to experience I've
had with SSDs for $work. I'd be really surprised if we care about builds
on the xserves in 8-10 years (given our previous experience with the ppc
to x86 transition).
Somewhat
On Mar 14, 2021, at 6:38 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> As far as longevity, the previous set of 3 500 GB SSDs I bought for these
> servers in 2016 lasted 4-5 years. They were rated for 150 TBW (terabytes
> written) and actually endured around 450 TBW by the time they failed, or 3
> times as long
On Mar 14, 2021, at 6:38 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> As far as longevity, the previous set of 3 500 GB SSDs I bought for these
> servers in 2016 lasted 4-5 years. They were rated for 150 TBW (terabytes
> written) and actually endured around 450 TBW by the time they failed, or 3
> times as long
SSD RAID offers speed and fault tolerance.
Simple options that are tolerant to a single disk failure are:
Free/one extra SSD: Use macOS Disk Utility to RAID 1 together two smaller,
inexpensive SSD drives for 100% redundancy.
OWC ThunderBay 4 Mini, $279: Use macOS Disk Utility to RAID 1 together
Hi Ryan,
thanks for your detailed response. I hadn't thought of some of the build
intricacies you mention. Let alone the upcoming silicon change and phasing
out of x86. Sounds like your approach is a good balance for longevity,
performance, and cost.
Cheers
Balthasar
On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 at
On Mar 14, 2021, at 06:11, Balthasar Indermuehle wrote:
> I used to run mac servers in what now can only be described as the days of
> yore... when a 32GB RAM bank cost a lot more than a (spinning) disk - and
> those were expensive then too. SSDs were not here yet. I haven't checked
> pricing
I used to run mac servers in what now can only be described as the days of
yore... when a 32GB RAM bank cost a lot more than a (spinning) disk - and
those were expensive then too. SSDs were not here yet. I haven't checked
pricing lately, but I'd think you could put 256GB of RAM into a server for
There was some additional downtime in the last few days but the buildmaster now
has a permanent home on a new SSD and is faster than ever. Builds that could
not be scheduled during recent downtime have been rescheduled and are in
progress.
On Mar 14, 2021, at 04:02, Vincent Habchi wrote:
>
Hi,
Wouldn’t it make sense to use some sort of RAM caching to speed up builds
instead of SSD? What’s the point of using a permanent storage device for
something that is bound to be erased in a very short time?
Maybe I’m way off base, though.
V.
Have you looked at something like this for fast storage/cache :
https://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDACL4M20GB/
https://www.amazon.de/ASRock-Ultra-Quad-Controller-Karte-PCI-Express/dp/B079TQ9C6Q/ref=sr_1_6
Setting these up in RAID-0 (with proper backup) ought to be the fastest
storage solution
Further discussions :
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/inside-the-ssd-revolution-how-solid-state-disks-really-work/
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/03/consumer-ssds-benchmarked-to-death-and-last-far-longer-than-rated/
I’m curious. I know the ToH, but “tail”?
Dave
- - -
> ... but I’m going to reconfigure it to get the longer backup “tail” provided
> by the ToH approach.
>
> Jim
James,
Thanks for the Tower of Hanoi reminder. I used that many (many) years ago with
9" tapes on a Big Iron machine but had forgotten the technique. I’ve been
using a FIFO seven-day rotation backup of my main user directory (using CCC),
but I’m going to reconfigure it to get the longer
> On 9 Mar 2021, at 5:53 am, Dave C via macports-users
> wrote:
>
> Old technology drives use magnetism to hold bits. This works for decades, or
> so I’ve read. Usually the motor or bearings die before the magnetic medium
> fails.
>
> Solid State Drives use memory chips to hold bits.
I think most people who talk about servers and HDs/SSDs are referring to
commercial internet-connected servers.
Yes, a private server will likely see a lesser degree of service/use and
storage drives can be uprated (the opposite of derated) for greater lifetime.
Dave
> I’ve been looking at
Old technology drives use magnetism to hold bits. This works for decades, or
so I’ve read. Usually the motor or bearings die before the magnetic medium
fails.
Solid State Drives use memory chips to hold bits. These “bit holders” can wear
out after a few trillion transitions (changing from 1
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Todd Doucet wrote:
HDs fail also, obviously, but tend not to be so predictable about it.
That of course depends upon the HD and the OS; my (FreeBSD) server's drive
is around 20 years old, and is still going strong.
There's also software that monitors the health of the
On Sun, 7 Mar 2021, Michael A. Leonetti via macports-users wrote:
I’d really love to know more about what you’re saying here. Up until I
just read what you wrote, I thought SSDs were the savior of HDDs.
Real disk drives [tm] have their N/S magnetic poles lined up pretty much
forever; SSDs
> On 7 Mar 2021, at 3:26 pm, Dave C via macports-users
> wrote:
>
> This applies to affordable SSDs. As you say, the ones that are on par (re.
> reliability) with HDDs are $pendy.
>
> It’s something to do with an SSD’s limited number of write cycles, if I
> remember...
>
> Dave
>
> - -
Here‘s an in depth discussion on SSD reliability, a little more detailed than
„(not) recommended“ from someone with a lot of first hand experience, it seems:
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/how-reliable-are-ssds/
On Mar 7, 2021, at 8:30 PM, Todd Doucet wrote:
> I think one can only get so far with purely qualitative analysis of the
> characteristics of SSDs and HDs and then the end of that analysis will be
> one-size-fits all advice, for example "recommended" or "not recommended" for
> servers.
this
I’ve been looking at VPS providers, and most of them offer SSD-based VPSs, so
they seem to be increasingly popular. I suspect that most VPSs do not get
consistently hammered, though.
Peter
—
p...@ehealth.id.au
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
> On 8 Mar 2021, at
I think one can only get so far with purely qualitative analysis of the
characteristics of SSDs and HDs and then the end of that analysis will be
one-size-fits all advice, for example "recommended" or "not recommended" for
servers.
Surely the answer might vary depending on the particular
To emphasize again, the reason SSDs aren’t recommended for servers is because
servers—by definition—see much heavier service, and these read/write cycles are
used up more quickly.
For personal use in a PC, or such, SSDs are proving to be the dream they were
promised to be.
As mentioned, given
The “on/off” switches in SSD’s are fragile and essentially break after too many
read/write cycles. As pointed out, it’s a get what you pay for world and cheap
SSD’s are just that… cheap. The expensive ones are more reliable because they
actually make available only a portion of their total
I’d really love to know more about what you’re saying here. Up until I just
read what you wrote, I thought SSDs were the savior of HDDs.
Michael A. Leonetti
As warm as green tea
> 3/7/21 午後5:26、Dave Horsfall のメール:
>
> On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Dave C via macports-users wrote:
>
>> Isn’t SSD a bad
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021, Dave C via macports-users wrote:
Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them,
apparently due to short lifespan.
If you knew how SSDs worked then you wouldn't use them at all without many
backups. Give me spinning rust any day...
-- Dave
On Mar 7, 2021, at 00:20, Dave C wrote:
> Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty?
My opinion is that it is a good choice in terms of performance. When I first up
this incarnation of our buildbot system in 2016 I had the workers running on
SSDs so that builds would be fast (our previous
This applies to affordable SSDs. As you say, the ones that are on par (re.
reliability) with HDDs are $pendy.
It’s something to do with an SSD’s limited number of write cycles, if I
remember...
Dave
- - -
> Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them, apparently
> due
> On 2021-03-07, at 01:20, Dave C via macports-users
> wrote:
>
> Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them, apparently
> due to short lifespan.
>
> Dave
Plenty of servers use SSDs now, usually with HDDs to lower cost. The default
option on AWS EC2 is to use an SSD.
Isn’t SSD a bad choice for server duty? No server farms use them, apparently
due to short lifespan.
Dave
On Mar 2, 2021, at 09:03, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2021, at 10:08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> We got through the winter storms but now there's a new problem. The SSD that
>> the buildmaster VM is stored on and that boots up VMware ESXi is failing.
>> I'm currently setting up a new
On Feb 21, 2021, at 10:08, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> We got through the winter storms but now there's a new problem. The SSD that
> the buildmaster VM is stored on and that boots up VMware ESXi is failing. I'm
> currently setting up a new ESXi startup disk and trying to find a temporary
> disk
We got through the winter storms but now there's a new problem. The SSD that
the buildmaster VM is stored on and that boots up VMware ESXi is failing. I'm
currently setting up a new ESXi startup disk and trying to find a temporary
disk I can move that VM to to get us back up and running.
The
36 matches
Mail list logo
