8 ms·
This is cool, but you know what would be even cooler? Instances with SSD storage. It's so annoying to have database queries run an order of magnitude faster on
by AngryParsley 16y ago
This is cool, but you know what would be even cooler? Instances with SSD storage. It's so annoying to have database queries run an order of magnitude faster on my MacBook Air than on a cloud server.
I don't know of any major provider that offers SSD instances. It really is an untapped market.
- flyt 16y agoGive it time. SSD's are entirely too expensive today for this kind of deployment.
- haribilalic 16y agoWhy can't they offer SSD instances at a higher price than non-SSD instances? Those that want or need the extra performance can pay for it just as they're paying for other niche instances already.
- mrb 16y agoSSDs are cheap in terms of $/IOPS. In fact they are about a hundred times cheaper than HDDs (Crucial C300 128GB: $250 for 50k IOPS vs. entry-level 7200RPM HDD: $60 for 120 IOPS or so). People, stop assuming that $/GB is the only metric that matters.
- wwortiz 16y agoI wonder if $/GB matters when people are selling VMs (like say linode), I don't know how many Virtual Machines are put into one server but if you are doing 16gb per VM and depending on the RAID usage as well it might start to add up. I also don't know if this is still a problem but there was a worry about limited writes on SSDs and if normal harddrive lifetimes are greater than that of an SSD by a significant amount I could see why it would be a problem.
- PStamatiou 16y agoIt's coming.. http://gigaom.com/2010/06/23/jungledisk-founder-launches-new-startup-solidfire/ http://gigaom.com/2010/06/23/jungledisk-founder-launches-new...
- prodigal_erik 16y agoThey would have to track wear and charge for the depreciation of a local SSD, since every newly started instance is going to want to overwrite much of the contents. It might make more sense to have SSD space available via SAN to any of your instances.
- doodhian 16y agohttp://www.businessconcernonline.com/ http://www.businessconcernonline.com/
- StavrosK 16y agoI don't know if they use SSDs, but Linode's London servers are absolutely screaming fast. Linode: Timing buffered disk reads: 230 MB in 3.01 seconds = 76.44 MB/sec My local X-25M: Timing buffered disk reads: 246 MB in 3.02 seconds = 81.48 MB/sec This would suggest they are using SSDs (or fast RAID? I'm not sure if this benchmark is sequential access). I get comparable performance for the Georgia data center, but it varies greatly there, so I'm not sure what's going on. EDIT: Sorry, apparently I can't tell my sde from my sda. My actual SSD performance is: Timing buffered disk reads: 564 MB in 3.01 seconds = 187.47 MB/sec So yes, disregard everything above.
- Nate75Sanders 16y agoThe 1TB SATA non-SSD drive in my server at work clocks in at 105.33MB/s for "hdparm -t" I doubt they're using SSDs.
- StavrosK 16y agoAh, it's probably a sequential benchmark then. For what it's worth, the London linode feels faster than my desktop (which has an ssd).
- codedivine 16y ago76MB/s is quite common for regular hard drives. The great advantage of SSDs is not necessarily sequential speed but rather random IO. As for your X25-M, do you have TRIM enabled? Your read speeds are consistent with a used-state SSD without TRIM.
- StavrosK 16y agoI am using TRIM now (I assume), as I'm running the Ubuntu 10.10 kernel, which supports it on ext4. Before this, I was running 10.04, which didn't support trim. I'm not sure if I should clone the drive and reformat to get more speed, and I'm also not sure if there are alignment issues (I followed Ted Ts'o's advice on setting that up)...
- rmc 16y agoGet an instance with a lot of memory and the use a tmpfs?