×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Gad,
Good idea to change the Subject if you want to catch the eye of those
who can help!
Jim already made several good points but overall I would amplify his
suggestion that we don't know enough. You might have only 7 drives that
provide that 6TB of space. If you do they are 1.1TB and 10K RPM so the
proposed SSD configuration would look like a Top Fuel dragster against
my Prius. Or you might have multiple drawers of 139GB 15K RPM drives on
several large cache controllers in a mirrored environment. MASSIVE
difference between those two options!
In either case it's likely the new SSDs will win big but we're guessing.
One more thing, Where are you getting the 'SSD writes are only slightly
faster than HDD writes' statement? Waaaaay back the original 70GB SSDs
that IBM sold for a kings ransom had write speeds of about 120MB/s which
is rather comparable to a 15K spinning drive on streaming writes. But
the SSD generations released in 2016 were well over 400MB/s (as high as
470MB/s)
And in IBM's latest SSD announcement they state: Write performance is
"more than 25 times that of a standard 15K HDD" and "the number of
drives is still a factor in achieving satisfactory performance,
especially for IBM i."
Read all about em here:
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS117-086
So I think you have some outdated information there. Even PC SSDs today
are pretty close to parity for read and write performance with writes
only a tick slower than reads any more.
- Larry "DrFranken" Bolhuis
www.Frankeni.com
www.iDevCloud.com - Personal Development IBM i timeshare service.
www.iInTheCloud.com - Commercial IBM i Cloud Hosting.
On 3/31/2018 6:45 AM, Gad Miron wrote:
Calling all sages
We're going to replace our S814 (3 cores activated) 6 TB internal HDDs
machine
with a S914 (3 cores activated) 18 931GB Mainstream SAS 4k SFF-3 SSD
machine.
Is this a viable DASD configuration for a write intensive environment?
(it is common knowledge that SSD writes are only slightly faster then HDD
writes right?)
TIA
Gad
date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 13:29:31 +0000
from: Diego Kesselman <diegokesselman@xxxxxxxxx>
subject: Re: What is the difference between Flash storage and a Flash
Storage system like the V9000/V7000
IBM Power Systems HDD and SSD options offer enhanced performance at a lower
cost and deliver server enhancements
https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
an&subtype=ca&appname=gpateam&supplier=897&letternum=ENUS117-086
BTW: V9000 is as fast as internal SSDs, but I've seen high workloads on
enterprise systems wih no performane impact and no changes on service time
(always 0.3x ms, even on backup window)
I'll discard V5x unless you need storage on a budget. You'll feel
degradation from your enterprise SSDs
El 28 mar. 2018 07:18, "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx> escribi?:
Diego,
I'm currently using internal Enterprise SSD - 775gb SFF-2 SSD for IBM I
ESOH.
I've talked to some performance folks, and most agreed you can't beat
internal SSD with a top controller.
< On the other side there's a "mainstream" 931GB SSD with same price per GB
as an HHD, and 18% faster than a normal SSD.
What do mean by this?
Paul
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.