2

I have various firewall/router/utility type boxes that do not require much if any storage for their primary purpose other than booting. But I do like to be able to put a more or less standard CentOS/RHEL install on them which takes a few gig. So I normally end up mirroring two small hard drives. Recently VARs have been proposing boxes with a single SSD like the Intel X-25M 40G on the theory that a single drive is simpler/takes up less space/draws less power (all important factors to me).

Any opinions on whether a single SSD is better than a pair of HDs?

Tracy Reed
  • 13
  • 3
Tracy Reed
  • 21
  • 1

2 Answers2

8

What's your definition of "better"?

Will it be faster? Probably.

Will it require less power? Yes.

Will it be more reliable? Maybe not. Even if a single SSD proves to be more reliable than a single standard hard drive (which is up for debate), your data is still not protected from a single-drive failure like it would be in a RAID1 scenario. Additionally, data recovery methods for failed SSD drives are not anywhere close what they are for standard hard drives, so if you have an SSD fail, it's likely you can kiss that data goodbye unless you have it backed up, whereas with a standard hard drive, there are many methods (some expensive, some cheap) that you can employ to get data off of the drive.

EEAA
  • 108,414
  • 18
  • 172
  • 242
  • +1 for: "data recovery methods for failed SSD drives are not anywhere close what they are for standard hard drives" *thumbs up* – 0xC0000022L Apr 03 '11 at 02:16
  • Also the 10,000 writes MTBF is a little concerning in general, and then of course there are garbage collection issues to look into as well. – Joseph Kern Apr 03 '11 at 02:23
  • @Joseph - agreed, of course people will get what's coming to them any time they implement consumer gear (like the above-mentioned SSD) in a server environment. High-end SLC SSDs are *much* more resilient and can stay at 100% of their rated IOPs for far more years than any sane person would keep them in production. – EEAA Apr 03 '11 at 02:30
  • I'm not so concerned about data recovery methods. I have never done data recovery on a physical HD anyway. Always have a backup. RAID isn't a backup method. Maybe I should get an SLC SSD instead. Or maybe I should mirror a pair of these M25s... – Tracy Reed Apr 03 '11 at 05:03
  • I would recommend mirroring a pair of the X25 SSDs. That will give you the best performance/reliability combination without breaking the bank. – EEAA Apr 03 '11 at 05:36
  • If RAID isn't a backup method, why bother with two? – TristanK Apr 03 '11 at 06:30
  • 2
    @TristanK - Tracy is right - RAID isn't backup. What is is, though, is a method to 1) reduce chances of needing to restore from backup, 2) improve disk performance and 3) keep the system up in case of a disk failure. – EEAA Apr 03 '11 at 06:35
2

Sure it can but the idea of replacing a system with redundancy with one that has a single point of failure surely can't be a good thing. If you feel absolutely compelled to replace the spinning drives with solid state at least keep the mirroring, which of course means two SSDs. Then, and only then, might it be called "better" in any sense that matters.

John Gardeniers
  • 27,262
  • 12
  • 53
  • 108