[rsyslog] reliability of SSD disks?

藤田 稜 rio at rio.st
Wed Aug 19 20:07:49 CEST 2009


Hi all,

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
http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/mainstream/index.htm

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  
>>> improvement
>>> 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  
>> where
>> 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  
> of
> device.  Are we talking about consumer grade MLC?  SLC?  Are some
> vendors' devices better than others?  Not all SSDs are created equal.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
> _______________________________________________
> rsyslog mailing list
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
> http://www.rsyslog.com




More information about the rsyslog mailing list