SSD Speeds
-
I was just curious if anyone has been able to test what scenario is faster?
-
PCI-express ssd plugged into motherboard or:
-
a Raid 0/10 ssd setup.
Assume identical drives. This is just for a workstation I am planning out for home to play around with, not sure what purpose will be yet.
-
-
@jmoore You mean raid0/10 on sata?
A pciex ssd is about 2x as fast from what ive seen, so the performance should be nearly the same.
I do wonder, can you raid the pciex ssds? Probably not though im not sure. 2 of them in raid 0 would be insane. -
@momurda Yes raid 0/10 on sata versus a single pci-express ssd.
I currently have the pci-express in my workstation at home but for new one I was wondering if it would be faster if I did a raid setup instead? -
@jmoore said in SSD Speeds:
@momurda Yes raid 0/10 on sata versus a single pci-express ssd.
I currently have the pci-express in my workstation at home but for new one I was wondering if it would be faster if I did a raid setup instead?Still depends, but rarely does the RAID card have the same throughput as the NVMe. So the NVMe turns out faster.
-
It's not 2x it's more like 3-4x faster. The bandwidth of that port is wayyy more than what we normally get.
-
The Samsung 970 EVO 250GB - NVMe PCIe M.2 2280 SSD is rated at 3.5GB/s (read) plugged straight into the MB.
The 8-port Dell H740p is capable of data speeds of 1.5GB/s per SAS/SATA port.
That should tell you enough.
However, you could get one of these beasts: HighPoint SSD7101A-1 NVMe RAID Controller and raid NVMe too!
-
@obsolesce Ok it seems sticking with PCI ssd is the way to go with windows but what about software raid using fedora, will that change any opinions?
-
In theory I think Linux probably would do a better job at this than Windows, but again this depends on the driver set.
-
@jmoore said in SSD Speeds:
@obsolesce Ok it seems sticking with PCI ssd is the way to go with windows but what about software raid using fedora, will that change any opinions?
The OS doesn't matter here. LVM/MD will handle it great in Fedora. I'm doing that for a big Fedora FS... no NVMe, but with regular drives.
-
Does Fedora do ZFS? I keep hearing all the pro's and con's of ZFS and I'm not that huge of a user of FreeNAS but people stand by it.
-
@krisleslie said in SSD Speeds:
Does Fedora do ZFS? I keep hearing all the pro's and con's of ZFS and I'm not that huge of a user of FreeNAS but people stand by it.
People are generally ignorant about these things, so you can't go by what everyone is saying.
FreeNAS is FreeBSD with a web page to manage system settings, and has tended to get settings wrong on too many occasions to call it a stable system. One of the many examples of why 'NAS Software's is bad. Just use one of the BSDs or Solaris if you want to use ZFS.
ZFS really doesn't have any advantages over md/LVM anyway. All the fancy caching and data dedication has been available filesystem native to Linux for years.
-
@krisleslie said in SSD Speeds:
Does Fedora do ZFS? I keep hearing all the pro's and con's of ZFS and I'm not that huge of a user of FreeNAS but people stand by it.
You don't care.
-
@krisleslie said in SSD Speeds:
I'm not that huge of a user of FreeNAS but people stand by it.
Not people you'd respect. FreeNAS is for non-technical people to think that they did something cool without knowing how they've put themselves at risk. People who need it are people you can't listen to because by definition it means they don't understand what they are telling you. People who use it anyway, but don't need it, probably aren't making very rational decisions about it, unless it is like a lab.
You have to think about what FreeNAS is, which is basically a scam on non-IT people to think that they can bypass IT. Other than that, it has nothing. So if someone tells you it is good, try asking them why. They will have no idea or they will make something up that is obviously false, like that the GUI is good (it's bad) or that ZFS is unique (it's common), or that ZFS is important (it's not.)
-
@krisleslie said in SSD Speeds:
Does Fedora do ZFS?
In a discussion about speed, why would you jump to an filesystem specifically not built for speed and known for being one of the slowest out there? If speed is your goal, ZFS would be specifically one to avoid (if anyone really tuned to that degree.)
-
@jmoore PCIe Gen3 @ 1x is 985MB/Second throughput. SATA SSDs can put out a maximum of about 500MB/Second. As far as IOPS go there's no comparison. Plus, most SATA SSDs can't reach the 500MB/Second real throughput level without significant cost.
There are some modern motherboards and hybridized RAID controllers (Tri-Mode) that can do RAID with NVMe but expect a steep premium to do so.
Our main desktop system here in the shop has a part's bin setup for the needed speed. A pair of RAID 1 Intel SSD DC S3500 series for the OS and data that needs to stay relatively secure and an Intel RS2 series PCIe RAID controller (I don't remember what it is and it's a generic MegaRAID in Device Manager) with a bunch of Intel SSD 320 series and earlier SSDs strung together in RAID 0. This setup gets used to slipstream Cumulative Updates and sometimes drivers into Windows Server then create a new .ISO file as well as spool up VMS and/or labs and/or client green field deployments.
-
@phlipelder that sounds like a cool setup. Yeah I'm not looking to go crazy here but it looks like I will be staying with what I got. I got a single PCi-e 3 something along with a couple 1 tb sandisk ssd's for storage with a bunch of fast ram. I thnk I will just stick with that formula for my next workstation
