search for: s3710s

...need 3 DWPD (doubtful), S3710 if you need 10 DWPD (very doubtful). Similar for Samsung DC level SSDs, check their specs. For example, my busiest mailbox servers only write about 250KB/s averaged, which mean about 50GB/day and thus would be a fit even for a small S3520. I'm still using 200GB S3710s because I can afford them, like the speed and never ever want to worry about wearout. > data : 4 X 2000 gb raid 10 for data > 32 gb ram > > i am having the OS and mail queue on primary drives > > i understand that Raid10 give a faster write and read whereas Raid 1 will have sl...

...gt; > I'm sure about tax and death, not much else. > > > > But as a rule of thumb I'd avoid swapping out stuff on production servers, > > even if it were to SSDs. > > Incidentally the servers I'm talking about here have their OS and swap on > > Intel DC S3710s (200GB) and the actual storage on plenty of 1.6TB DC > > S3610s. > > > > Relying on the kernel to make swap decisions is likely to result in much > > reduced performance even with fast SWAP when you're overcommitting things > > on that scale. > > > >...

...r than RAM)? >> > > I'm sure about tax and death, not much else. > > But as a rule of thumb I'd avoid swapping out stuff on production servers, > even if it were to SSDs. > Incidentally the servers I'm talking about here have their OS and swap on > Intel DC S3710s (200GB) and the actual storage on plenty of 1.6TB DC > S3610s. > > Relying on the kernel to make swap decisions is likely to result in much > reduced performance even with fast SWAP when you're overcommitting things > on that scale. > > > But read on. > >> S...

...fast SSD storage (which is a lot cheaper than RAM)? > I'm sure about tax and death, not much else. But as a rule of thumb I'd avoid swapping out stuff on production servers, even if it were to SSDs. Incidentally the servers I'm talking about here have their OS and swap on Intel DC S3710s (200GB) and the actual storage on plenty of 1.6TB DC S3610s. Relying on the kernel to make swap decisions is likely to result in much reduced performance even with fast SWAP when you're overcommitting things on that scale. But read on. > Seems that these IMAP processes are long lived pr...

> 1. 256GB of real RAM, swap is for chums. Are you sure that 100,000 IMAP sessions wouldn?t work well with SWAP, especially with fast SSD storage (which is a lot cheaper than RAM)? Seems that these IMAP processes are long lived processes (idling most of the time) that don?t need that much of the contents of real memory available for much of the life of the process. I use a database proxy in