New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
SSD-cached has higher capacity.
Pure SSD has lower latency.
Depends if you need the extra space of SSD cache
What do you intend to use it for?
i just need to know Which is better in terms of performance and reliable to use for web
SSD-cached better in my opinion.
SSD will always perform better, there's no way SSD cache can beat pure SSD.
Depends on if you're using it or spamming dd tests.
Now
SSD = 1
SSD Cache = 1
+1
It all depends on the provider, what hardware setup they're using, how packed the node is. You're not going to notice much of a difference in real world performance, a lot of other factors will come into play.
"Pure SSD" has better performance but is more expensive.
@Jarlan
Did you read this use for web
what u mean spamming ?
The problem is others have said it depends. Providers use different SSDs and different SSD Cache solutions.
Different SSDs have different speeds. It can be worse or better than SSD Cache.
SSD Cache can be read only or read/write.
Pure SSD
If RAID-10 storage is provided, both Pure SSD and SSD-cached are equally reliable.
a) in one case, you've got at least 4x SSD drives in a RAID-10 array
b) in the other case, there's a RAID-10 array of at least 4x mechanical SATA/SAS disks, with a RAID-1 (usually) array of SSD drives for the caching part.
Not necessarily.
Some setups include RAID10s of both.
OP - both should be reliable if the host has put time and effort into building their systems correctly. Most people don't need pure SSD speed, so a Cached option is usually more appropriate. But if you can fit into a smaller capacity, go with a RAID10 SSD setup. Make sure you ask the host if it's hardware RAID10 as some try to pass off software or hardware RAID1 systems which show less performance than a good SSD-Cached setup.
Not true, a large array of regular disks will write faster than a single SSD. There are so many variables that you can't make blanket statements
Now for @ZeroCool if it is just a website, SSD will not offer any advantage, cached or pure SSD, but if you suffer from WordPress plugin addiction, SSD cached or pure SSD will be equal, and not until you have a very poorly optimized database will pure SSD offer any advantage, but again, there are too many variables to offer any real advice.
Your comparison isn't fair at all if you want to put large arrays into the picture. A single SSD can hit 550MB/sec write speed at 0.1 ms seek time. Your RAID0 array needs to be at least 3x 15k RPM to hit that speed more likely 4x, with seek times of 0.7-1.0ms assuming the RAID0 brings the 2.0 ms spec seek time down a little. Capacity of 3x 146gb 15k is around the same as a single Intel 520 480GB SSD, price wise the 3 drives will cost 750 vs 500 for the single SSD.
OP is asking for a pure performance factor, SSD outweighs harddrives any day any time. If you want to compare SSD vs a disk array, at least compare with an SSD array of equivalent costs.
But not stating load factor, so for all we know, a floppy drive could meet his needs.
1.44 floppy 100ms seek time, 7200rpm harddisk 10ms seek time, SSD 0.1ms seek time.
Your website loads 1000x faster than hostbluff! That's performance :P
Yeah but you can cache the whole floppy in ram, then it's going to be faster than anything else!
Consider the CPU and network speed for 100x times faster loading web site