LukeCWM wrote:I don't know that I would describe us as heavy writers in the database, since we do use it for a lot of reading too. Currently, it takes a good second for us to open a contact record in our database. And sometimes writes can take a long time.
LukeCWM wrote:I understand that SSDs are shipped with extra storage to transition into use as older sections slow down. I hear enterprise SSDs typically have 20% of spare storage for this function, while consumer drives typically have 7%.
LukeCWM wrote:Two different people speculated that you could just format a consumer SSD at only 80% capacity to achieve the same thing, but I can't find any evidence.
LukeCWM wrote:I can't get much info on whether TRIM will work in a server environment, or how bad it gets if I need to rely on garbage collection only.
LukeCWM wrote:I gather there are broad concerns about running SSDs in RAID, especially consumer SSDs, and including RAID 1. I can't find much hard data.
LukeCWM wrote:Perhaps an option is to spend a bit more for enterprise SSD
LukeCWM wrote:Does anyone have for Samsung 830 vs 840 Pro?
I view the evolution of "affordable" SSDs as falling across three distinct eras. In the first era we saw most companies focusing on sequential IO performance. These drives gave us better-than-HDD read/write speeds but were often plagued by insane costs or horrible pausing/stuttering due to a lack of focus on random IO. In the second era, most controller vendors woke up to the fact that random IO mattered and built drives to deliver the highest possible IOPS. I believe Intel's SSD DC S3700 marks the beginning of the third era in SSD evolution, with a focus on consistent, predictable performance.
LukeCWM wrote:Absurdity, are you of the opinion that good spinning drives will be fast enough for a database with so few users?
Yes. Also, like I said above, given the description of the symptoms, I think that the database structure itself needs to be addressed. Even if you go to SSDs and gain massive IOPS, they still won't help you forever if your DBMS is spinning data unnecessarily.
dextrous wrote:For 14 users, SSDs are probably overkill. Depending on usage patterns for your application, 15k RPM drives could be overkill.
Example: I admin servers and storage at work. We run many databases with a couple hundred simultaneous users. We have it all (and many other servers) running on 24 15k RPM drives without issues or performance problems.
To right-size your storage, you really need an idea of how many IOPs you need. 14 users that only retrieve data every 5 or 10 minutes is a lot different that 14 users that are running large reports continuously.
LukeCWM wrote:The database is Microsoft Dynamics CRM, and it sits on top of SQL. Currently, we are hosting Dynamics CRM 4.0 and SQL (and Exchange) on a quad core (no hyper threading) Harpertown server with 1 processor and 4 GB of RAM (due to 32-bit OS ... ridiculous, I know).
Scrotos wrote:LukeCWM wrote:The database is Microsoft Dynamics CRM, and it sits on top of SQL. Currently, we are hosting Dynamics CRM 4.0 and SQL (and Exchange) on a quad core (no hyper threading) Harpertown server with 1 processor and 4 GB of RAM (due to 32-bit OS ... ridiculous, I know).
Exchange and MSSQL on the same box with 4 GB of RAM, less usable? I'd say that's the bottleneck right there unless they're running on 100Mbps NIC cards. Though even then...
Are you running small business server or something?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests