SSD in a network

[Jesse Templeton]

I wonder if it's possible to have SSD speeds on a network?

[Oshino Shinobu]

Yes, it is possible, though often expensive. On a standard 1Gbps network, an SSD is going to be way faster. To get the full potential of an SSD, you'd need 10Gbps networking equipment. 

 

If that somehow isn't enough, you could look into things like 40Gb Infiniband type stuff. 

 

EDIT: LTT actually just uploaded a video showing off a new Asus switch with 2 10GBASE-T uplinks. 

 

 

[lx_srs]

3 minutes ago, Jesse Templeton said:

I wonder if it's possible to have SSD speeds on a network?

it is.  It's expensive as all hell, but it is.

[Electronics Wizardy]

yep, we have up to 100gbe ethernet.

 

10gbe can be cheap if you buy it used on ebay(less than 100 dollars for computer to computer)

[fjdhdhcyfhf]

you might want to watch the new video and join the discussion in the LTT section 

 

[VerticalDiscussions]

But why :/? Reliability should be nº1 priority xD.

[Electronics Wizardy]

8 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

But why :/? Reliability should be nº1 priority xD.

this won't hurt reliability at all.

[vanished]

moved to networking.  And yes, but it won't be cheap.

[VerticalDiscussions]

10 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

-snip-

How so in the long run?

[Electronics Wizardy]

1 minute ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

How so in the long run?

how would it hurt reliabiliy?

 

High speed network are just as reliable, ssds are more reliable than hdds.

 

 

[MoonSpot]

23 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

But why :/? Reliability should be nº1 priority xD.

There are products that offer an SSD cache drive/accelerator.  If you've got a mass storage NAS, it doesn't hurt to have an SSD handling all the photos and videos thumbnails as well as the folder paths/file allocation system mirror so you don't waste time spinning up raided HDD(s) seeking for 2 or 3 bits of data here, and 2 or 3 bits there, etc.  Not that anyone I've seen has implemented it in an optimal fashion IMO, they've just been hitting up the most actively accessed files.  Not that I've been even remotely keeping up with the subject.  Would be nice if that's changed.

[VerticalDiscussions]

2 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

-snip-

Wouldnt it be more thermal, shock/vibration resistant and power efficient, but reach its final stages faster than what the 24/7 workflows could demand from?

[Electronics Wizardy]

3 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Wouldnt it be more thermal, shock/vibration resistant and power efficient, but reach its final stages faster than what the 24/7 workflows could demand from?

huh. I still don't get how its less reliable.

[VerticalDiscussions]

2 minutes ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

-snip-

The SSD performance degradation and memory cells getting worn out quicker than HDD, wouldnt that be the case with most high end SSD's vs enterprise HDD's?

[SageOfSpice]

 

10 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

The SSD performance degradation and memory cells getting worn out quicker than HDD, wouldnt that be the case with most high end SSD's vs enterprise HDD's?

 

The argument that I usually see is that in the time it would take for an HDD to transfer the same amount of information as the write endurance of an SSD, it'd likely fail by that point anyways.

 

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, SageOfSpice said:

-snip-

And that is a pretty rock solid argument it seems. Given the load of benefits the SDD offers, aside from these new ones that even require thermal controlling chips, theyr always gonna be a better investment in the fast yet low duration run.

[Electronics Wizardy]

43 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

The SSD performance degradation and memory cells getting worn out quicker than HDD, wouldnt that be the case with most high end SSD's vs enterprise HDD's?

A ssd will still last longer than a hdd.