Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:11:25 -0400 From: Greg Marsh <greg.marsh@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best kind of hard drive for heavy use? Message-ID: <B8299717-8CDA-4F86-A98C-2A0D0AF7AD37@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160915190814.346f753d@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <42.56.05022.D3A48D75@dnvrco-oedge02> <20160914120349.76a015cd@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160914175449.185d12b0@archlinux.localdomain> <20160914221954.00fb1d56@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160915013848.5564c238@archlinux.localdomain> <CAOyJeZTzo4Kh9OaKQk6_-6qB8imHbGGMgT53DNK0%2BNgS-HR37g@mail.gmail.com> <20160915140856.24af27ca@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160915155254.768f6f70@archlinux.localdomain> <20160915161026.62dffff7@gumby.homeunix.com> <20160915172446.7b018b87@archlinux.localdomain> <20160915190814.346f753d@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi all,=20 I've been reading this thread with joy and interest. I've been enamored with= hard drives ever since a high school teacher gave me a huge textbook to rea= d on how they worked. That was 30 years ago, when interleaving and MFM/RLL w= ere still things.=20 I eventually parlayed that into several storage management/architect jobs.=20= Enough with my background. One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is that if heavy w= orkloads are the concern, why are spindle drives being considered? If SSD is= too much $/GiB, why is it only 1 spindle drive, when one could run a reason= ably quick, hard workload RAID-Z?=20 I don't know what the OP's budget is, but if speed is a priority, I wouldn't= consider any single spindle sata drive, regardless of make. I'd go SSD, kno= wing that it's only going to last me a few years at best. If that's all the t= ime he got out of his single spindle drive, why go back to one? If memory se= rves, modern SSD drives are all triple cell now, unlike the first few genera= tions of consumer SSDs, which were only single cell. My .02 on drive makers, at home I have a 4x2tb WD Red ZFS array, which takes= a licking and keeps on ticking. It's been running 24x7 for 2 years so far. = It's my backup and media streaming system, with a few other jailed systems t= hat are staging/testing before I implement live.=20 I hope that made sense.=20 Have a great day everyone! Cheers, Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 15, 2016, at 14:08, RW via freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@fre= ebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:24:46 +0200 > Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-questions wrote: >=20 >>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:10:26 +0100, RW via freebsd-questions wrote: >>> The important thing is that everything that can't (or shouldn't) be >>> discarded has to fit into swap+ram. Most desktops/workstations have >>> much more memory than they need, in which case you can safely >>> allocate swap plus most of the ram to tmpfs, if you want to. =20 >>=20 >> Ok, I didn't use FreeBSD since a while ago. On my Arch Linux, if the >> tmpfs is full, swap isn't used ... >=20 > I don't know why your particular system didn't swap, but that's not > true in general, e.g.: >=20 > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/tmpfs.txt >=20 > "tmpfs puts everything into the kernel internal caches and grows and > shrinks to accommodate the files it contains and is able to swap > unneeded pages out to swap space." > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.or= g"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B8299717-8CDA-4F86-A98C-2A0D0AF7AD37>