Consumer Grade SSDs vs Enterprise Grade SSDs
-
@Dashrender said:
This doesn't help my understanding.
Traditionally, paying for enterprise drives might have gotten you literally nothing. So the extra cost was all waste, except for the warranty support. Today you at least, normally, get much higher reliability.
-
@Dashrender said:
The idea that HP/Dell/whomever will send you a free replacement drive doesn't sound all that worth while, since you can get the consumer drives with warranties as well, sure there's probably a bit more work (yes that work does have value for the equation).
Not comparable. HP and Dell will replace a drive even before it fully fails based on error rates, will do so with four hour response time and will run it to your shop and do the replacement for you. You are getting IT staff and extreme logistics as part of the warranty.
Standard warranties from the drive vendors mean that you have to wait for the drive to fail, do an RMA, ship the drive back, wait for a replacement and replace it yourself.
-
Take this to a datacenter level and it makes even more sense when you need people to send and receive the drives, do the replacement, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Take this to a datacenter level and it makes even more sense when you need people to send and receive the drives, do the replacement, etc.
Do you allow Dell/HP to enter the DC and replace drives when the reports say they are about to fail? At bare minimum I would expect the need to wait for a repair window.
-
@Dashrender said:
Do you allow Dell/HP to enter the DC and replace drives when the reports say they are about to fail? At bare minimum I would expect the need to wait for a repair window.
Assuming proper RAID redundency, there is no need for a maintenance window. WHy pay off hours rates?
-
@JaredBusch said:
Assuming proper RAID redundency, there is no need for a maintenance window. WHy pay off hours rates?
You mean anything other than a RAID 0, right?
I'm not sure about that if that was the case, then why is Scott so dead set against Hot Spares? Unless he's only against hot spares for spinning rust RAID 5.
-
@Dashrender said:
Do you allow Dell/HP to enter the DC and replace drives when the reports say they are about to fail? At bare minimum I would expect the need to wait for a repair window.
They do the work when you tell them to do the work. Generally, at least over 50% of the time, immediately drive replacement is best, but it all depends.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
Do you allow Dell/HP to enter the DC and replace drives when the reports say they are about to fail? At bare minimum I would expect the need to wait for a repair window.
Assuming proper RAID redundency, there is no need for a maintenance window. WHy pay off hours rates?
If you have a RAID 6 array, for example, you might have a performance impact during computational hours. Even working at the big bank, they generally made us wait until weekends to replace failed drives, which was a bit crazy.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure about that if that was the case, then why is Scott so dead set against Hot Spares? Unless he's only against hot spares for spinning rust RAID 5.
Hot Spares with R5 are insane as it could be a live part of the array making it a RAID 6. RAID 1, same thing, just make it part of the array. Both cases are insane to have hot spares.
With RAID 6 you can have them in situations where the hot spare does not push you unnecessarily close to RAID 10 and RAID 5.3 (aka RAID 7) is not available. But that's relatively uncommon.
In RAID 10 you can have them but they only make sense in very large arrays or cases where you just can't get to the array to swap the failed drives.
In some cases it is an architectural problem, in others it is that the cost is just not justified.
