Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
tomrippity
Starting Member
37 Posts |
 Posted - 2012-03-29 : 09:39:05
|
| 3 years ago a video was released by some Samsung guys called SSD Awesomeness on youtube. (If you haven't seen it, the video is here: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1[/url])3 years and many updates means the same kind of throughput could be achieved much easier now. Where they used 24 SSDs, maybe only 8-12 would be needed now. If you work with large datasets that are almost entirely read and not written to, would it be smart to consider some setup like this? Our department has the resources to buy and build a setup consisting of a massive SSD raid 10 array, but it would only be worth it if reports generated via Coldfusion and MS SQL would load in less than a second, even if they were quite complex. SSD's are very intriguing to me, so this question is as much for amusement as it is anything else.Thanks |
|
|
Sachin.Nand
2937 Posts |
|
|
tomrippity
Starting Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 2012-03-29 : 14:11:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sachin.Nand
first RAID5 is highly preferred than any other RAID if your database is mostly read only.Intel recommends SSD with RAID5 & RAID10 though for its controllers.http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/sb/CS-030395.htm?wapkw=%28ssd+raid%29After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says W T F ....
I've been informed we have 16 128GB Samsung 830 SSDs.Our database does have a TON of reads, and very few writes.I can use all of those drives if I want to, but will not necessarily use them. I'm just not sure exactly what hardware I would need to take advantage of that number of drives. Obviously a RAID card, but most of the ones I see only support 8 drives and also support SATAIII. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Super Fast SQL Server