The case against SSDs

[Steve N. Mavronis]

Now I'm confused what to do! What does "less of an issue for notebook and desktop users" mean?

 

"Over the last year, researchers have been teasing out the problems with making flash look like disks. While these problems are less of an issue for notebook and desktop users, they are a big problem for servers... Flash-based SSDs have revolutionized enterprise storage. But SATA SSDs have serious problems that show that after more than 50 years of disk-based storage, our ancient I/O stack must be rebuilt. Here's why." - ZDnet

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-case-against-ssds/

[TheKDub]

Lol, just go for an SSD, they are amazing.

 

I'd recommend the samsung 850 evo series of ssds.

[dalomo]

Just because some current server software doesn't play well with SSDs doesn't mean we need to get rid of SSDs. It means that software needs to be updated. There's no real case against putting an SSD in a personal system.

[Steve N. Mavronis]

I'd recommend the samsung 850 evo series of ssds.

 

Yes that's my pick for SSD+HDD setup.

[Mattrixx]

Now I'm confused what to do!

 

"Over the last year, researchers have been teasing out the problems with making flash look like disks. While these problems are less of an issue for notebook and desktop users, they are a big problem for servers... Flash-based SSDs have revolutionized enterprise storage. But SATA SSDs have serious problems that show that after more than 50 years of disk-based storage, our ancient I/O stack must be rebuilt. Here's why." - ZDnet

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-case-against-ssds/

Just get an SSD if you have the cash and want to get it. Data corruption or loss from the fact that it's an SSD isn't anything to worry about for the average consumer. We've been using SSDs for awhile now, and they've held up just fine. There's no compelling reason to not go SSD if you have the money and space to put them.

[PudgyAstronaut]

Now I'm confused what to do! What does "less of an issue for notebook and desktop users" mean?

 

"Over the last year, researchers have been teasing out the problems with making flash look like disks. While these problems are less of an issue for notebook and desktop users, they are a big problem for servers... Flash-based SSDs have revolutionized enterprise storage. But SATA SSDs have serious problems that show that after more than 50 years of disk-based storage, our ancient I/O stack must be rebuilt. Here's why." - ZDnet

 

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-case-against-ssds/

 

We (consumers) can use PCIe slots for them or use alternate connections like SATA express, but you can't persuade an entire industry to change how the drives interface/mount, etc over night. I think that's their point

[UnknownEngineer]

To translate, the 'issue' in question here is that even if a server was to upgrade to SSD storage, it wouldn't benefit much from it as the system would be bottlenecked by the SATA interface.

That's atleast what I got from the text, all it means is that SSDs can fully saturate the Sata 3 interface, that's not a bad thing IMO.

[PeskyEscky]

Now I'm confused what to do! What does "less of an issue for notebook and desktop users" mean?

 

As Dalomo says, its not the SSD's that is the issue. Its going to take some time for things like this to properly get a grip of using SSD's effectively in servers. A server's use of storage is completely different to that of a normal desktop. 

[Sidiox]

I remember reading the same thing but more in depth a few months ago. Can't wait till the come up with better ways to interact with flash storage.

[Sidiox]

To translate, the 'issue' in question here is that even if a server was to upgrade to SSD storage, it wouldn't benefit much from it as the system would be bottlenecked by the SATA interface.

That's atleast what I got from the text, all it means is that SSDs can fully saturate the Sata 3 interface, that's not a bad thing IMO.

I think the SATA interface software stack would be a better way to describe the issue

[Homicidium]

"This article was sponsored by HGST, Seagate, Hitachi & Western Digital"

 

Yes guys, I know WD and Seagate also offer SSD's so calm your tits

[alicskysareblue]

Just get an SSD if you have the cash and want to get it. Data corruption or loss from the fact that it's an SSD isn't anything to worry about for the average consumer. We've been using SSDs for awhile now, and they've held up just fine. There's no compelling reason to not go SSD if you have the money and space to put them.

 

Just because some current server software doesn't play well with SSDs doesn't mean we need to get rid of SSDs. It means that software needs to be updated. There's no real case against putting an SSD in a personal system.

 

this has nothing to do with the average consumer this has everything to do with raid arrays the limits of sata and the general I/O of ssds, I will admit though that this was really difficult to understand 

[FPS with a Wacom Tablet]

Isn't this why we have NVMe, optimized for SSDs?

[Steve N. Mavronis]

Cool guys thanks for your responses.

[Homicidium]

Once samsung pushes size even more making ssd's even cheaper, i'm sure they go bankrupt

 

I wouldn't go as far as to say they would be going bankrupt, but they'll have to rethink their portfolio!

 

Not to mention that Samsung isn't really the brand, that pushes the $/GB, but rather companies like SanDisk.

[Doobeedoo]

SSDs are just great! And yeah we're still on widespread SATA but it's light years faster than HDD anyway. And NVMe will be next gen interface for SSDs in time.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Just because some current server software doesn't play well with SSDs doesn't mean we need to get rid of SSDs. It means that software needs to be updated. There's no real case against putting an SSD in a personal system.

 

Cost is a real case against it. If you're on a tight budget your money is best spent on a GPU and then CPU for a gaming system if you play AAA titles and want high framerates. $100 for a 250GB SSD is an extremely high opportunity cost towards your CPU or GPU if you're on a budget of say $700-$800 or less, and a 128GB or lower SSD doesn't make a lot of sense in the days of 60 GB game installs and 30 GB operating systems, especially factoring in that you want to leave a decent amount of free space for an SSD to work properly. I really don't think even 250GB makes much sense, 500GB seems a decent size to where you can install a lot of stuff.

 

Now for people who play lots of competitive games like CS:GO, LOL, or people into FPS like Battlefield, I think it does make sense to go SSD over more expensive GPU, since midlevel GPUs like the GTX 960 or R9 380 are great in these kind of games.

[ZetZet]

What the topics name says 'The case against ssds' what the article says 'ssds are too fast to use in old servers'. Well I think OP didn't read the article.

[ChineseChef]

Here is the simple explanation of the problem. 

 

Current I/O systems have been designed from the ground up with the history are reality of spinning disks.  Software and hardware has been designed to read and write data as efficiently as possible knowing that the I/O system uses spinning disks and local caching.  Essentially, the software tries to send and request data in such a way as to allow for the most efficient transfer knowing that the disk head has to get to the right spot, and may have to move around. 

 

With SSDs, where on the disk the data is stored has become irrelevant, precaching is almost pointless, trying to read the data in the order it is written to the disk and reassembling in the actual order costs more time then it used to save.  Plus SSDs have rapidly maxed out back channel data transmission lines.  Imagine a super fast RAID array with short stroked 15k rpm drives, enough of them and you can max out a 12Gbps SAS line, but it probably takes 1/3 to 1/4 as many SSDs.  So if it used to take you 12 drives to max out your lane, and even then it was hard to get that kind of real performance out of it.  Now you can swap those 12 small sized drives (think 50-150 GB) for 1-6 TB SSDs that will now max out that lane speed with 2 drives, and that is actual real world performance.

 

 

An example of how I/O systems have been made for spinning disks.  It is know that data may get placed out of order on the disk, so something that software attempts to do to speed up reads, is to simply read the data in order from the disk, and then reassemble it in memory.  With an SSD this is a waste of memory and costs speed and time, since you can read any part of the disk in an equal amount of time.  So now you have to change all the software to just read the parts it wants, as it wants them, instead of thinking ahead. 

[Me1z]

Not sure why everyone seems so confused by this article. It isn't trying to convince you to not use SSDs, its explaining why SSDs don't play nice outside of very basic consumer usage, like gaming or web browsing. For mass-storage or for data that is being constantly rewritten or updated, an SSD will be brought to its knees. Its not an issue with sata or any kind of short term hardware bottlekneck. Its a problem with how our programs currently store and reference data, and how its an obsolete model that isn't compatible with how SSDs function. 

[dalomo]

Cost is a real case against it. If you're on a tight budget your money is best spent on a GPU and then CPU for a gaming system if you play AAA titles and want high framerates. $100 for a 250GB SSD is an extremely high opportunity cost towards your CPU or GPU if you're on a budget of say $700-$800 or less, and a 128GB or lower SSD doesn't make a lot of sense in the days of 60 GB game installs and 30 GB operating systems, especially factoring in that you want to leave a decent amount of free space for an SSD to work properly. I really don't think even 250GB makes much sense, 500GB seems a decent size to where you can install a lot of stuff.

 

Now for people who play lots of competitive games like CS:GO, LOL, or people into FPS like Battlefield, I think it does make sense to go SSD over more expensive GPU, since midlevel GPUs like the GTX 960 or R9 380 are great in these kind of games.

While yeah, people on budget builds shouldn't put an SSD in their system, that isn't an argument against SSDs being viable in personal builds, just some personal builds. We're arguing two separate things here, and I agree with you.

 

My argument, and what i meant by "real case" was I meant there are no negatives that would occur if you were to put an SSD into your current PC. Forgetting the price (which has come down a TON in the last year or two, which is awesome) there is no reason to not put an SSD in your personal build, It only makes it faster.

[SteveGrabowski0]

While yeah, people on budget builds shouldn't put an SSD in their system, that isn't an argument against SSDs being viable in personal builds, just some personal builds. We're arguing two separate things here, and I agree with you.

 

My argument, and what i meant by "real case" was I meant there are no negatives that would occur if you were to put an SSD into your current PC. Forgetting the price (which has come down a TON in the last year or two, which is awesome) there is no reason to not put an SSD in your personal build, It only makes it faster.

 

I agree. Even as one of the biggest critics of SSDs in budget builds here, I just grabbed one of the $200 500 GB 850 EVOs from amazon. I figured it was between that or getting a second 970, and the second 970 seems like it would be stupid on my 1080p60 monitor (and I'm not upgrading that for probably a couple of years). Maybe it'll look bad in retrospect if all the big games this Christmas season are as demanding as Witcher 3, which I need to turn to High + ultra textures to get 60 fps consistently, but I'd be surprised. Maybe Battlefront, but extremely doubtful on Fallout 4 (those are the two games I'm really looking forward to).

[Ohlyver]

Sorry for OP, but this news doesn't feel like news since op asks a question first and then quotes something that looks like the opening sentence of the article which did not explain anything...

Anyway, what I think I quickly understand is that data centre are locked into the HDD era since ssds gets limited by all the said hdd legacy stuff , and a total unit change for an ssd only rig might not yet be justifiable for rea$on$

That's my opinion, I welcome anyone to discuss it

[mr moose]

I don't know if these guys have worked it out yet or not, but hardware interfaces have been changing and updating since their inception nearly half a century ago.  No one has support for an IBM350 or 3330 anymore.  Worrying about what the worthiness of ssds in 50 years is kinda like worrying about the usefulness 1.44M floppies tomorrow.  

[Trik'Stari]

SSD = life changing.