zfs discuss - Jan 2010 - need a few suggestions for a poor man''s ZIL/SLOG device

I''m not 100% sure i''m going to need a separate SSD for my ZIL
but if i did
want to look for one, i was wondering if anyone could suggest/recommend a
few budget options.

My current hardware is something like this:


intel core2quad 9550
8 gb ddr2 800 unbuffered ECC
3 AOC-SAT2-MV8 controllers
21 7200 RPM hard drives
3 kingston snv125-s2/64 GB ssd''s

I haven''t decided on whether or not ot go with raidz or raidz2 yet but
if i
use raidz1 it will be

4 vdevs 5 drives each 1 spare

if i go raidz 2 it will be
2 vdevs 7 drives 1 vdev 6 drives and 1 spare

I am going to use 1 ssd for L2arc  and 2 for mirrored Rpool (i might only
use 20 gb each for rpool and use the other 40ish for L2arc as well)

I was told that these ssd''s are a bad choice for ZIL

When i ordered them i had originally planned to use one for zil.

I''m not looking to spend over 300 dollars if i can help it but if i can
do
something cheaper i''d really be happy.

I''m really not clear on why the ssd''s i ordered
aren''t recommended/good for
ZIL but from what i''ve sort of gathered, it''s due to poor
write
performance...

thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100104/c3c647b9/attachment.html>

On Jan 4, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> I''m not 100% sure i''m going to need a separate SSD for my
ZIL but if
> i did want to look for one, i was wondering if anyone could suggest/ 
> recommend a few budget options.
Start with zilstat, which will help you determine if your workload uses
the ZIL.
http://www.richardelling.com/Home/scripts-and-programs-1/zilstat
  -- richard

>
> My current hardware is something like this:
>
>
> intel core2quad 9550
> 8 gb ddr2 800 unbuffered ECC
> 3 AOC-SAT2-MV8 controllers
> 21 7200 RPM hard drives
> 3 kingston snv125-s2/64 GB ssd''s
>
> I haven''t decided on whether or not ot go with raidz or raidz2 yet
> but if i use raidz1 it will be
>
> 4 vdevs 5 drives each 1 spare
>
> if i go raidz 2 it will be
> 2 vdevs 7 drives 1 vdev 6 drives and 1 spare
>
> I am going to use 1 ssd for L2arc  and 2 for mirrored Rpool (i might  
> only use 20 gb each for rpool and use the other 40ish for L2arc as  
> well)
>
> I was told that these ssd''s are a bad choice for ZIL
>
> When i ordered them i had originally planned to use one for zil.
>
> I''m not looking to spend over 300 dollars if i can help it but if
i
> can do something cheaper i''d really be happy.
>
> I''m really not clear on why the ssd''s i ordered
aren''t recommended/
> good for ZIL but from what i''ve sort of gathered, it''s
due to poor
> write performance...
>
> thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

You need SLC SSD for ZIL. The only SLC SSD I''d recommend is Intel
X25-E. Others are either too expensive or much slower than Intel.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

slightly outside of my price range.

I''ll either do without or wait till they drop in price....is there a
"second
best" option or is this pretty much it?


On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Chris Du <dilidolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> You need SLC SSD for ZIL. The only SLC SSD I''d recommend is Intel
X25-E.
> Others are either too expensive or much slower than Intel.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100104/dc230700/attachment.html>

On 01/04/10 19:35, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> slightly outside of my price range.
> 
> I''ll either do without or wait till they drop in price....is there
a "second
> best" option or is this pretty much it?
I guess it depends on your workload and your performance 
expectations/requirements vs budget. For example: my home server has an 
Intel X25-M for the boot drive and I have carved out a 4 GB primary 
partition on it to use as separate log device. It gives me a 3x 
improvement when extracting tar files over NFS. An expensive 
write-optimized SSD could probably do much better, but I''m not willing 
to spend the kind of money required as this is just a home file server. 
Given that you can remove the log if it doesn''t help and reuse it as a 
cache device, you can easily try it out ot see if it helps in your case.

Cheers,

Menno
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Chris Du <dilidolo at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
>> You need SLC SSD for ZIL. The only SLC SSD I''d recommend is
Intel X25-E.
>> Others are either too expensive or much slower than Intel.
>>
-- 
Menno Lageman - Sun Microsystems - http://blogs.sun.com/menno

On Jan 4, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Thomas Burgess wrote:
> slightly outside of my price range.
>
> I''ll either do without or wait till they drop in price....is there
a
> "second best" option or is this pretty much it?
If you need the separate log, then you can figure the relative latency
gain for latency-biased workloads by examining the devices in the
main pool and compare to the proposed separate log.  If your main
pool is comprised of large, slow HDDs, then figure on the order of
10ms or so (or look at the datasheet and add rotational latency to
average seek). If your SSD is rated better, then it should be an
improvement.

Important note: your separate log does not need to be very large.
1 GByte can be more than enough to cover most cases (BobF''s
workload excepted ;-)  With the current b130 you can remove a
log device, so you can experiment with your workload on a small
slice and see if the log device helps.  OTOH, if zilstat shows all
balls (zeros), then you can blissfully forget about separate logs.
  -- richard

Myself and others had good luck with the OCZ vertex.  I use two 30GB versions
and they have very high write and read throughputs for such a cheap MLC.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

I''m PRETTY sure the kingston drives i ordered are as good/better

i just didnt'' know that they weren''t "good enough"

Basically, if i have 3 raidz2 groups or 4 raidz groups with a total of 20
7200 RPM drives is using a cheaper MLC drive going to make things WORSE?

thanks for the idea though, i may try to ocz vertex


On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, tom wagner <mama_jojo at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Myself and others had good luck with the OCZ vertex.  I use two 30GB
> versions and they have very high write and read throughputs for such a
cheap
> MLC.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100104/5c567de8/attachment.html>

They are fast when they are new. Once all the blocks are written, performance
degrades significantly. SLC will also degrade over time, but when it needs to
erase blocks and rewrite, it is much faster than MLC. That''s why for
ZIL, SLC SSD is prefered.

It''s possible to remove MLC ZIL and use wiper utility to erase all the
blocks and put it back.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

so are you saying that the "degrading problem" with ssd''s can
be fixed
completely with such a utility?

Don''t they STILL wear out and become more or less broken after heavy
use



On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Chris Du <dilidolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> They are fast when they are new. Once all the blocks are written,
> performance degrades significantly. SLC will also degrade over time, but
> when it needs to erase blocks and rewrite, it is much faster than MLC.
> That''s why for ZIL, SLC SSD is prefered.
>
> It''s possible to remove MLC ZIL and use wiper utility to erase all
the
> blocks and put it back.
> --
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100104/c293d3be/attachment.html>

You can use the utility to erase all blocks and regain performance, but
it''s a manual process and quite complex. Windows 7 support TRIM, if SSD
firmware also supports it, the process is run in the background so you will not
notice performance degrade. I don''t think any other OS supports TRIM.

I don''t know how long it will wear out under ZIL usage, I think it
depends on your usage. SLC usually has longer lifespan than MLC.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

Fast is a relative term, because even after the first write to the end, they are
still really fast for a small server and the latency is still low <1ms which
is often more important than throughput.  The topic said poor mans slog. The
vertexes can be had for $100 and the vertex turbo a little more. SLC is still
pretty expensive.  There''s is a trim utility for the ssd but even after
filling the drive for the first time its still fast enough to help dedup
performance and is faster than large sata drives or raidz especially when it
comes to latency.

Check out the reviews on newegg before you buy anything of course.  They usually
contain some pretty good info on the SSDs in question. I think someone else
posted their experience with the vertex drives in the forum as well.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Burgess <wonslung at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> I''m PRETTY sure the kingston drives i ordered are as good/better
>
> i just didnt'' know that they weren''t "good
enough"
I disagree that those drives are "good enough".  That particular drive
uses the dreaded JMicron controller - which has a really bad
reputation.  And a poor reputation that it *earned* and deserves.
Even though these drives use a newer revision of the original JMicron
part (that basically sucks) - this one is *not* much better.  Have a
look at this recent article from tomshardware.com and you''ll see the
performance characteristics of the 128Gb version of your 64Gb drive.
And, BTW, usually (nearly always) the larger version of a drive
performs better than the smaller (versions) of the same drive family.
Here''s the link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518.html

As regards Intels SLC products, the newer version of the x25E product
will arrive RSN (Real Soon Now) - although no-one knows the exact
release date.  The new drives will be 50, 100 and 200Gb in size and
are based on the newer 34nm flash parts (as is the G2 version of the
x25m).   So I would not recommend purchasing the X25E series until the
new models are released.

Someone else suggested the OCZ vertex - again watch out for the lower
performance of the smaller members of this family.  The 120Gb version
of that drive has had many positive reviews - but is outside your
budget.

With a hard $300 budget I''d go with two of the Kingston 40Gb drives I
posted about on this list (email if you can''t find the post).  This
product is a stripped down Intel x25m - half the flash and half the
control channels.  Writes are 1/2 of an x25m - but reads are pretty
good.  Excellent for a boot device and available for just under $100
each.

If you don''t mind going $100 over budget [1], then I''d add a
*single*
Intel x25m 80Gb drive and partition it to experiment with slog and zil
storage.  Since the *known* failure rates on SSDs are very low, I
would not be worried with not having mirrored larc.   I''d use the x25m
to run a set of experiments - as others have suggested.  Since its so
*fast* to experiment with ZFS - you''ll reach solid conclusions after a
couple of hours of experiments and then decide what you want to do as
regards using SSDs.  You can always re-purpose the x25m for another
application.   And if you decide it adds value to your ZFS box, down
the road you can add a 2nd one and mirror it.

Thomas - I think you''re over analyzing your ZFS config at this point.
Like I said - build it and experiment.

[1] and you could always drop one or two data drives.  There''s a big
advantage to only buying the storage capacity you need *right now* -
since, by deferring the purchase of additional space you need in the
future, you''ll likely be able to purchase higher density, higher
performance and lower cost-per-gigabyte drives when you do *need* the
extra storage.

PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using Amazon
Web Services (AWS) S3 service.  Right now there is no charge to push
data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there.  Do a
quick (back of the napkin) calculation on what storage you can get for
$30/month and factor in bandwidth costs (to pull the data when/if you
need it).   My "napkin" calculations tell me that I cannot compete
with AWS S3 for up to 100Gb of storage available 7x24.  Even the
electric utility bill would be more than AWS charges - especially when
you consider UPS and air conditioning.  And thats not including any
hardware (capital equipment) costs!  see: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/
>
> Basically, if i have 3 raidz2 groups or 4 raidz groups with a total of 20
7200 RPM drives is using a cheaper MLC drive going to make things WORSE?
>
> thanks for the idea though, i may try to ocz vertex
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, tom wagner <mama_jojo at hotmail.com>
wrote:
>>
>> Myself and others had good luck with the OCZ vertex. ?I use two 30GB
versions and they have very high write and read throughputs for such a cheap
MLC.
>> --
>> This message posted from opensolaris.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
Regards,

--
Al Hopper ?Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX al at logical-approach.com
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/

> I disagree that those drives are "good enough".  That particular
drive
> uses the dreaded JMicron controller - which has a really bad
> reputation.  And a poor reputation that it *earned* and deserves.
> Even though these drives use a newer revision of the original JMicron
> part (that basically sucks) - this one is *not* much better.  Have a
> look at this recent article from tomshardware.com and you''ll see
the
> performance characteristics of the 128Gb version of your 64Gb drive.
> And, BTW, usually (nearly always) the larger version of a drive
> performs better than the smaller (versions) of the same drive family.
> Here''s the link:
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-ssd-performance,2518.html
>
> As regards Intels SLC products, the newer version of the x25E product
> will arrive RSN (Real Soon Now) - although no-one knows the exact
> release date.  The new drives will be 50, 100 and 200Gb in size and
> are based on the newer 34nm flash parts (as is the G2 version of the
> x25m).   So I would not recommend purchasing the X25E series until the
> new models are released.
>
>
I guess i got some bad advice then
I was told the kingston snv125-s2 used almost the exact same hardware as an
x25-m and should be considered the "poor mans" x25-m


> Someone else suggested the OCZ vertex - again watch out for the lower
> performance of the smaller members of this family.  The 120Gb version
> of that drive has had many positive reviews - but is outside your
> budget.
>
> With a hard $300 budget I''d go with two of the Kingston 40Gb
drives I
> posted about on this list (email if you can''t find the post). 
This
> product is a stripped down Intel x25m - half the flash and half the
> control channels.  Writes are 1/2 of an x25m - but reads are pretty
> good.  Excellent for a boot device and available for just under $100
> each.
>
>
Right, i couldn''t find any of the 40 gb''s in stock so i
ordered the 64
gb.....same exact model, only bigger....does your previous statement about
the larger model ssd''s not apply to the kingstons?

> If you don''t mind going $100 over budget [1], then I''d
add a *single*
> Intel x25m 80Gb drive and partition it to experiment with slog and zil
> storage.  Since the *known* failure rates on SSDs are very low, I
> would not be worried with not having mirrored larc.   I''d use the
x25m
> to run a set of experiments - as others have suggested.  Since its so
> *fast* to experiment with ZFS - you''ll reach solid conclusions
after a
> couple of hours of experiments and then decide what you want to do as
> regards using SSDs.  You can always re-purpose the x25m for another
> application.   And if you decide it adds value to your ZFS box, down
> the road you can add a 2nd one and mirror it.
>
> Like i said, i already ORDERED all this stuff....some of it has arrived,
some hasn''t

I ordered 3 ssd''s...originally had different ideas on how i could use
them
but decided that using them as rpool and l2arc wouldn''t be a bad
idea....then later (this original thread post) i asked what i could get for
around 300 bucks for ZIL....then someone mentions the ocz drive...I remember
reading a toms hardware article comparing that drive with the kingston drive
i ordered and also a corsair drive saying the kingston was the best for some
things and close on every test.






> Thomas - I think you''re over analyzing your ZFS config at this
point.
> Like I said - build it and experiment.
>
>
This is likely true.  I tend to do this with everything...I''m a
tinkerer and
i like to know as much as possible before i start....over analyzing is
something i do with most everything.....i probably spent too much money for
my needs as well....To give you an idea, this "server" originally
started as
a 1 tb drive in a celeron..i kept adding new parts and new drives....it
started as linux with a single drive, then moved to xfs on software raid...i
later learned of ZFS but opensolaris wouldn''t work on my hardware so i
opted
for FreeBSD, i expanded the pool a couple times and now i''m at the
point
where i''m droppping more money on stuff to make it work in opensolaris.
I
learned a lot in FreeBSD about ZFS in general....but yah, in all actuality i
would probably be better off waiting till everyhting is here and my server
is running to see if i even NEED this.
I do appreciate the advice though, that''s why i subscribe to this list,
to
get answers to my nubbish questions and learn from people who know more than
i''ll probably ever know about ZFS =)



> [1] and you could always drop one or two data drives.  There''s a
big
> advantage to only buying the storage capacity you need *right now* -
> since, by deferring the purchase of additional space you need in the
> future, you''ll likely be able to purchase higher density, higher
> performance and lower cost-per-gigabyte drives when you do *need* the
> extra storage.
>
> i COULD if they weren''t already on the way
I''m ok with what i''ve got.....i KNOW that spending 400 on an
ssd is going to
be the best bet IF i need ZIL

I basically wanted to know if anyone has gotten away with using some cheaper
drives with decent results, what the caveats are  and what would work.

I think i''ve got most of my answers (though now i feel really bad about
my
kingston ssd''s....)

PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using
Amazon
> Web Services (AWS) S3 service.  Right now there is no charge to push
> data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there.  Do a
> quick (back of the napkin) calculation on what storage you can get for
> $30/month and factor in bandwidth costs (to pull the data when/if you
> need it).   My "napkin" calculations tell me that I cannot
compete
> with AWS S3 for up to 100Gb of storage available 7x24.  Even the
> electric utility bill would be more than AWS charges - especially when
> you consider UPS and air conditioning.  And thats not including any
> hardware (capital equipment) costs!  see: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/
>
> >
> > Basically, if i have 3 raidz2 groups or 4 raidz groups with a total of
20
> 7200 RPM drives is using a cheaper MLC drive going to make things WORSE?
> >
> > thanks for the idea though, i may try to ocz vertex
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, tom wagner <mama_jojo at
hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Myself and others had good luck with the OCZ vertex.  I use two
30GB
> versions and they have very high write and read throughputs for such a
cheap
> MLC.
> >> --
> >> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> zfs-discuss mailing list
> >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > zfs-discuss mailing list
> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX al at logical-approach.com
>                   Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT
> OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100104/efd09a9b/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jan  4 at 22:01, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>   I guess i got some bad advice then
>   I was told the kingston snv125-s2 used almost the exact same hardware as
>   an x25-m and should be considered the "poor mans" x25-m
...
>
>   Right, i couldn''t find any of the 40 gb''s in stock so i
ordered the 64
>   gb.....same exact model, only bigger....does your previous statement
about
>   the larger model ssd''s not apply to the kingstons?
The SNV125-S2/40GB is the "half an X25-M" drive which can be
"often"
found as a bare OEM drive for about $85 w/ rebate.

Kingston does sell rebranded Intel SLC drives as well, but under a
different model number: SNE-125S2/32 or SNE-125S2/64.  I don''t believe
the 64GB Kingston MLC (SNV-125S2/64) is based on Intel''s controller.

The Kingston rebranding of the "gen2" intel MLC design is
SNM-125S2B/80 or SNM-125S2B/160.  Those are essentially 34nm Intel
X25-M units I believe.

--eric


-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

The SNV125-S2/40GB is the "half an X25-M" drive which can be
"often"
> found as a bare OEM drive for about $85 w/ rebate.
>
> Kingston does sell rebranded Intel SLC drives as well, but under a
> different model number: SNE-125S2/32 or SNE-125S2/64.  I don''t
believe
> the 64GB Kingston MLC (SNV-125S2/64) is based on Intel''s
controller.
>
> The Kingston rebranding of the "gen2" intel MLC design is
> SNM-125S2B/80 or SNM-125S2B/160.  Those are essentially 34nm Intel
> X25-M units I believe.
>  <edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org>
yes, ssd model numbers are purposely confusing and deceitful i think.

All in all, i have noone but myself to blame...and even with this mishap the
ssd isn''t "not worth the money"

the 64 gb version is based on the second revision of the dreaded jmicron
controller but according the my new research, the original issues with this
controller were fixed before the release of this ssd.....so apparently they
DO perform as expected.

worst case scenario, i can use 2 to mirror my rpool and 1 for cheap l2arc.

I also noticed intel sells a cheaper model of the x25
i want to say it was x25-v but i might be wrong...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100105/9abd9c74/attachment.html>

Chris Du <dilidolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> You can use the utility to erase all blocks and regain performance, but
it''s a manual process and quite complex. Windows 7 support TRIM, if SSD
firmware also supports it, the process is run in the background so you will not
notice performance degrade. I don''t think any other OS supports TRIM.
IIRC, Lnux alsi supports the TRIM command.

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

For those searching list archives, the SNV125-S2/40GB given below is not
based on the Intel controller.

I queried Kingston directly about this because there appears to be so
much confusion (and I''m considering using these drives!), and I got
back
that:

The V series uses a JMicron Controller
The V+ series uses a Samsung Controller
The M and E series are the Intel Drives

There will be "G2" versions of the V and V+ series out shortly, at
least
one of which will be based on a Toshiba controller.

Part number prefixes are:

V series: SNV125-S2
V+ Series: SNV225-S2
M Series: SNM225-S2
E Series: SNE125-S2

http://www.kingston.com/anz/ssd/default.asp


It does seem that there are _lots_ of 3rd party websites that claim the
variations of the SNV* parts are Intel based drives, however that''s not
what Kingston''s rep told me, and it''s not what''s on
their website.

Regards,
	Tristan

-----Original Message-----
From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org
[mailto:zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Eric D. Mudama
Sent: Tuesday, 5 January 2010 7:35 PM
To: Thomas Burgess
Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] need a few suggestions for a poor man''s
ZIL/SLOG device

On Mon, Jan  4 at 22:01, Thomas Burgess wrote:
>   I guess i got some bad advice then
>   I was told the kingston snv125-s2 used almost the exact same
hardware as
>   an x25-m and should be considered the "poor mans" x25-m
...
>
>   Right, i couldn''t find any of the 40 gb''s in stock so i
ordered the
64
>   gb.....same exact model, only bigger....does your previous statement
about
>   the larger model ssd''s not apply to the kingstons?
The SNV125-S2/40GB is the "half an X25-M" drive which can be
"often"
found as a bare OEM drive for about $85 w/ rebate.

Kingston does sell rebranded Intel SLC drives as well, but under a
different model number: SNE-125S2/32 or SNE-125S2/64.  I don''t believe
the 64GB Kingston MLC (SNV-125S2/64) is based on Intel''s controller.

The Kingston rebranding of the "gen2" intel MLC design is
SNM-125S2B/80 or SNM-125S2B/160.  Those are essentially 34nm Intel
X25-M units I believe.

--eric


-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

On Wed, Jan  6 at 14:56, Tristan Ball wrote:
>For those searching list archives, the SNV125-S2/40GB given below is not
>based on the Intel controller.
>
>I queried Kingston directly about this because there appears to be so
>much confusion (and I''m considering using these drives!), and I got
back
>that:
>
>The V series uses a JMicron Controller
>The V+ series uses a Samsung Controller
>The M and E series are the Intel Drives
I''m 99.999% sure that the 40GB V drive is based on the Intel
architecture and that the kingston rep was wrong.

http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=4

The label in the picture clearly shows a bare letter ''V'' and
40GB
markings, and the board/layout is identical to the X25-M with only 5
NAND TSOPs instead of 10 or 20.

Either way though, the Intel-branded 40GB MLC drive (X25-V) is now
available on newegg as well:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025

Currently $129.99 in retail packaging (with aluminum sled so it can
bolt into a 3.5" drive bay, etc.), no idea if they''ll sell
''em for the
$85 that newegg briefly had the kingston branded version.

--eric


-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

I think the confusing part is that the 64gb version seems to use a different
controller all together
I couldn''t find any SNV125-S2/40''s in stock so i got 3
SNV125-S2/64''s
thinking it would be the same,m only bigger.....looks like it was stupid on
my part.

now i understand why i got such a good deal.
well i have yet to try them...maybe they won''t be so bad...on newegg
they
get a lot of good ratings.
either way i doubt using them for the rpool will hurt me...just a little
more expensive than the compact flash cards i was going to get.


On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Eric D. Mudama
<edmudama at bounceswoosh.org>wrote:
> On Wed, Jan  6 at 14:56, Tristan Ball wrote:
>
>> For those searching list archives, the SNV125-S2/40GB given below is
not
>> based on the Intel controller.
>>
>> I queried Kingston directly about this because there appears to be so
>> much confusion (and I''m considering using these drives!), and
I got back
>> that:
>>
>> The V series uses a JMicron Controller
>> The V+ series uses a Samsung Controller
>> The M and E series are the Intel Drives
>>
>
> I''m 99.999% sure that the 40GB V drive is based on the Intel
> architecture and that the kingston rep was wrong.
>
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=4
>
> The label in the picture clearly shows a bare letter ''V''
and 40GB
> markings, and the board/layout is identical to the X25-M with only 5
> NAND TSOPs instead of 10 or 20.
>
> Either way though, the Intel-branded 40GB MLC drive (X25-V) is now
> available on newegg as well:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025
>
> Currently $129.99 in retail packaging (with aluminum sled so it can
> bolt into a 3.5" drive bay, etc.), no idea if they''ll sell
''em for the
> $85 that newegg briefly had the kingston branded version.
>
>
> --eric
>
>
> --
> Eric D. Mudama
> edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100106/d348d335/attachment.html>

On 06 January, 2010 - Thomas Burgess sent me these 5,8K bytes:
> I think the confusing part is that the 64gb version seems to use a
different
> controller all together
It does.
> I couldn''t find any SNV125-S2/40''s in stock so i got 3
SNV125-S2/64''s
> thinking it would be the same,m only bigger.....looks like it was stupid on
> my part.
> 
> now i understand why i got such a good deal.
> well i have yet to try them...maybe they won''t be so bad...on
newegg they
> get a lot of good ratings.
> either way i doubt using them for the rpool will hurt me...just a little
> more expensive than the compact flash cards i was going to get.
I''ve ordered a 40G which should be coming in a week or so,
I''ll do some
ZIL/L2ARC testing with it and report back.

Random 4k writes seems to be quite alright;
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=392&Itemid=60&limit=1&limitstart=6

/Tomas
-- 
Tomas ?gren, stric at acc.umu.se, http://www.acc.umu.se/~stric/
|- Student at Computing Science, University of Ume?
`- Sysadmin at {cs,acc}.umu.se

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Eric D. Mudama
<edmudama at bounceswoosh.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan ?6 at 14:56, Tristan Ball wrote:
>>
>> For those searching list archives, the SNV125-S2/40GB given below is
not
>> based on the Intel controller.
>>
>> I queried Kingston directly about this because there appears to be so
>> much confusion (and I''m considering using these drives!), and
I got back
>> that:
>>
>> The V series uses a JMicron Controller
>> The V+ series uses a Samsung Controller
>> The M and E series are the Intel Drives
>
> I''m 99.999% sure that the 40GB V drive is based on the Intel
> architecture and that the kingston rep was wrong.
+1

The Kingston rep is wrong.  Obviously Kingstons part numbering scheme
is totally foobarred.  The 40gb drive is "half an x25m".   I stand by
the part numbers I posted originally:

Desktop Bundle - SNV125-S2BD/40GB
Bare drive - SNV125-S2/40GB

When purchasing this drive, verify the manufacturers part number and
ignore the description and product picture(s).
> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=4
>
> The label in the picture clearly shows a bare letter ''V''
and 40GB
> markings, and the board/layout is identical to the X25-M with only 5
> NAND TSOPs instead of 10 or 20.
>
> Either way though, the Intel-branded 40GB MLC drive (X25-V) is now
> available on newegg as well:
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025
>
> Currently $129.99 in retail packaging (with aluminum sled so it can
> bolt into a 3.5" drive bay, etc.), no idea if they''ll sell
''em for the
> $85 that newegg briefly had the kingston branded version.
>
> --eric
>
>
> --
> Eric D. Mudama
> edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>


-- 
Al Hopper  Logical Approach Inc,Plano,TX al at logical-approach.com
                   Voice: 972.379.2133 Timezone: US CDT
OpenSolaris Governing Board (OGB) Member - Apr 2005 to Mar 2007
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/ogb/ogb_2005-2007/

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 08:33:23PM -0600, Al Hopper
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Thomas Burgess <wonslung at
gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I''m PRETTY sure the kingston drives i ordered are as
good/better
> >
> > i just didnt'' know that they weren''t "good
enough"
> 
> I disagree that those drives are "good enough".  That particular
drive
> uses the dreaded JMicron controller - which has a really bad
> reputation.  And a poor reputation that it *earned* and deserves.
> Even though these drives use a newer revision of the original JMicron
> part (that basically sucks) - this one is *not* much better.  Have a

meandering off topic here ...

i use one of those 64G kingston jmicron/toshiba drives in my mac.

The "stuttering" problems attributed to the older jmicron drives are
non-existent with this one in my experience.

I have not done anything to optimize for slow writes (eg, disable browser
disk cache).

The overall performance improvement on my system is huge, due to the
very-fast reads.  

Mine is old enough and full enough that all cells have been written to
at this point.

Overall I am very pleased with the drive, especially for the price
paid.

I agree with Al that it probably isn''t suitable as a ZIL.  Maybe as a
read cache though.

danno
--
Dan Pritts, Sr. Systems Engineer
Internet2
office: +1-734-352-4953 | mobile: +1-734-834-7224

Winter 2010 ESCC/Internet2 Joint Techs
Hosted by the University of Utah - Salt Lake City, UT
January 31 - February 4, 2010
http://events.internet2.edu/2010/jt-slc/

> meandering off topic here ...
>
> i use one of those 64G kingston jmicron/toshiba drives in my mac.
>
> The "stuttering" problems attributed to the older jmicron drives
are
> non-existent with this one in my experience.
>
>
This is great news.  I''ve read this but it''s good to know that
someone on
the list can confirm it.

> I have not done anything to optimize for slow writes (eg, disable browser
> disk cache).
>
> The overall performance improvement on my system is huge, due to the
> very-fast reads.
>
> Mine is old enough and full enough that all cells have been written to
> at this point.
>
> Overall I am very pleased with the drive, especially for the price
> paid.
>
> I agree with Al that it probably isn''t suitable as a ZIL.  Maybe
as a
> read cache though.
>
> This is cool, i intend to use 2 as rpool and 1 as L2ARC (i might slice the
2 rpool drives to 20g/42g and use the 20g as rpool and the 42g as L2ARC
giving me a total of 148 gb L2ARC.

danno
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100106/70e93aaa/attachment.html>

Having gotten back to the Rep and asked further questions, I''m forced
to
agree - the rep doesn''t know what they''re talking about.

It does look like the Intel based 40G Kinsgston may not yet be available 
in australia.

What a drag. :-)

T

On 6/01/2010 10:46 PM, Al Hopper wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Eric D. Mudama
> <edmudama at bounceswoosh.org>  wrote:
>    
>> On Wed, Jan  6 at 14:56, Tristan Ball wrote:
>>      
>>> For those searching list archives, the SNV125-S2/40GB given below
is not
>>> based on the Intel controller.
>>>
>>> I queried Kingston directly about this because there appears to be
so
>>> much confusion (and I''m considering using these drives!),
and I got back
>>> that:
>>>
>>> The V series uses a JMicron Controller
>>> The V+ series uses a Samsung Controller
>>> The M and E series are the Intel Drives
>>>        
>> I''m 99.999% sure that the 40GB V drive is based on the Intel
>> architecture and that the kingston rep was wrong.
>>      
> +1
>
> The Kingston rep is wrong.  Obviously Kingstons part numbering scheme
> is totally foobarred.  The 40gb drive is "half an x25m".   I
stand by
> the part numbers I posted originally:
>
> Desktop Bundle - SNV125-S2BD/40GB
> Bare drive - SNV125-S2/40GB
>
> When purchasing this drive, verify the manufacturers part number and
> ignore the description and product picture(s).
>
>    
>> http://www.anandtech.com/storage/showdoc.aspx?i=3667&p=4
>>
>> The label in the picture clearly shows a bare letter
''V'' and 40GB
>> markings, and the board/layout is identical to the X25-M with only 5
>> NAND TSOPs instead of 10 or 20.
>>
>> Either way though, the Intel-branded 40GB MLC drive (X25-V) is now
>> available on newegg as well:
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167025
>>
>> Currently $129.99 in retail packaging (with aluminum sled so it can
>> bolt into a 3.5" drive bay, etc.), no idea if they''ll
sell ''em for the
>> $85 that newegg briefly had the kingston branded version.
>>
>> --eric
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eric D. Mudama
>> edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zfs-discuss mailing list
>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>>
>>      
>
>
>

>PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using Amazon
>Web Services (AWS) S3 service. Right now there is no charge to push
>data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there. Do a
>quick (back of the napkin) calculation on what storage you can get for
>$30/month and factor in bandwidth costs (to pull the data when/if you
>need it). My "napkin" calculations tell me that I cannot compete
>with AWS S3 for up to 100Gb of storage available 7x24. Even the
>electric utility bill would be more than AWS charges - especially when
>you consider UPS and air conditioning. And thats not including any
>hardware (capital equipment) costs! see: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/
When going the amazon route, you always need to take into account retrieval
time/bandwidth cost.
If you were to store 100GB on Amazon - how fast can you get your data back, or
how much would bandwidth cost you to retrieve it in a timely manner. It is all a
matter of requirements of course.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:11:31PM -0800, Moshe Vainer
wrote:
> >PS: For data that you want to mostly archive, consider using Amazon
> >Web Services (AWS) S3 service. Right now there is no charge to push
> >data into the cloud and its $0.15/gigabyte to keep it there. Do a
> >quick (back of the napkin) calculation on what storage you can get for
> >$30/month and factor in bandwidth costs (to pull the data when/if you
> >need it). My "napkin" calculations tell me that I cannot
compete
> >with AWS S3 for up to 100Gb of storage available 7x24. Even the
> >electric utility bill would be more than AWS charges - especially when
> >you consider UPS and air conditioning. And thats not including any
> >hardware (capital equipment) costs! see: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/
> 
> When going the amazon route, you always need to take into account
> retrieval time/bandwidth cost.  If you were to store 100GB on Amazon -
> how fast can you get your data back, or how much would bandwidth cost
> you to retrieve it in a timely manner. It is all a matter of
> requirements of course.
Don''t forget asymmetric upload/download bandwidth.