[rsyslog] reliability of SSD disks?
rio at rio.st
Wed Aug 19 20:07:49 CEST 2009
I've used Intel's one (SSDSA2MH080G1, MLC cell) as follows.
- for RHEL5 server for 9 months long, not RAIDed
- for Mac OS X for 3 months long, not RAIDed
I've not met any disk I/O troubles.
But some of my colleagues have met troubles with cheaper SSDs.
As Jeff-san pointed out, NOT ALL SSDs are created equal : (
On 2009/08/20, at 1:21, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> david at lang.hm writes:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> quick question to those in the know: are SSD disks considered
>>> reliable from
>>> an auditing (or near audit-grade) point of few? Thank to a hard
>>> disk failure,
>>> I finally got such a disk in my workstation and the performance
>>> is obviously very good and creates quite a different view about
>>> the volume
>>> that rsyslog can do with "disk" queues.
>> they are far more reliable than normal drives, but you would still
>> want to
>> have a mirrored pair for true audit-grade purposes. they do wear
>> out over
>> time (although that time is expected to be several years worth of
>> continuous write activity)
>> that being said, for my normal systems I am now buying a single SSD
>> before I purchased a mirrored pair of high-speed SCSI/SAS drives
> I find these claims of reliability surprising, if only due to the lack
> of soak time for such drives. There is also no mention of the class
> device. Are we talking about consumer grade MLC? SLC? Are some
> vendors' devices better than others? Not all SSDs are created equal.
> rsyslog mailing list
More information about the rsyslog