many ssds carry 3-year warranties and report useable life via smart. if you are concerned about wearing them then buy a spare or two and rma them as they approach burn out.
that is what i do :) Sent from Jasons' hand held On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:24 AM, Reginald Beardsley <[email protected]> wrote: > Order of magnitude I already knew. I was hoping for measured data. I'm > running Solaris 10 on this particular system. The OI box is a nettop for > Internet access. > > I'm concerned w/ occasionally running jobs which exceed physical memory. At > most I can only go up to 24 GB by replacing all the 2 GB DIMMS w/ 4 GB DIMMS. > > However, I'd not considered the problem of pathological paging patterns. On > a long job one might well wear out an SSD in a single run which would not be > helpful. I don't think I want to try to figure out what the paging patterns > of a large solver like glpk are. Particularly because it almost certainly > problem and option dependent. > > A dedicated pair of small, fast disks for swap is probably the best option. > To the best of my knowledge Solaris will still interleave paging among > multiple swap partitions on separate drives. This was something I routinely > did on my systems for many years. > > IIRC two matched drives were almost twice as fast as one. It was essential > that the drives have identical performance, otherwise it actually slowed the > system down. I vaguely recall that more than two didn't improve performance, > but it was a long time ago. I may not have had 4 identical drives. > > Have Fun! > Reg > > --- On Wed, 8/8/12, Jan Owoc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Jan Owoc <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] SSD swap space performance >> To: "Discussion list for OpenIndiana" <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, 10:39 AM >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Udo >> Grabowski (IMK) >> <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On 08/08/2012 16:47, Reginald Beardsley wrote: >>>> >>>> Has anyone done any testing on the performance of >> an SSD for swap vs disk? >>>> I'm currently fully populated at 12 GB in my Z400. >>>> >>> That should work, but if you really need a fast SSD >> for >>> regularily swapping, you may should start thinking >> about >>> more memory... >> >> I haven't done testing on OpenIndiana, but in my experience >> swap on an >> SSD is an order of magnitude faster than swap on HDD. Note >> that, as >> Udo pointed out, this is still an order of magnitude (or >> two) slower >> than additional RAM. >> >> If your workload is such that you have large chunks of >> memory that can >> be swapped out for extended periods of time, then an SSD >> will do this >> several times faster. However, if you have a program that is >> actively >> using more than the 12GB of RAM you have, you will kill your >> SSD (SSDs >> have a limited number of write cycles - each time you'd run >> the >> program, loads of data would hit the SSD) and won't get >> anywhere near >> the performance of actually having adequate memory. >> >> Jan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss _______________________________________________ OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openindiana-discuss
