On 14 January 2015 at 15:49, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 14/01/2015 2:02 PM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
On 14 January 2015 at 11:01, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
On 13/01/2015 3:12 AM, Robin Humble wrote:
(TL;DR - put your email on a SSD)
Not with TB on a client machine.... file fragmentation doesn't last with TB files; it's next to useless trying to do that. What that means in a nutshell is that far too many files get re-written over and over again and that /could/ be too much for SSD, although SSD is far more durable these days -- subjecting it to TB though is probably asking for trouble.
Oh come on, that's FUD. SSDs are way more durable than that!
It's not FUD.
http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment http://techreport.com/review/27436/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-two-freaking...
Not news to me.
Not much doubt about the benefits of SSD, that's why I italicized the /could/ word.....
In any case, I have seen TB be absolutely awful with files on at least NTFS .... but I still use it, I won't use it with an SSD though at this stage, but I might one day.
You know, what you said doesn't really make sense. You acknowledge that SSDs offer significant benefits to your workload, and you seem to acknowledge that SSDs are actually completely fine for durability of your workload.. So why are you still saying you wouldn't use one? Why are you not worried about your spinning rust drives wearing out? After all, those bearings and motors won't last forever, and all those rapid head seeks to deal with random i/o must put increased wear and tear on them. -T