I am currently with this question in mind. I manage web servers and are studying a server with nvme SSD. would be two 480gb disks. We want to use Nvme only for MySQl, because the directory of the sites is large and we do not yet have the largest nvme disk options for the datacenter.

Do you think this alternative should generate a good response in the performance of DB sites?

tanks

Sorry but that’s thinking from 8 years ago, SSDs have moved on since then and writes are no longer a cause for concern. Did you not read the line about Samsung quoting 300TB write endurance, but this only being guidance, the likelihood is it would go well beyond that.

Todd,

This is a good point – keeping database small and in memory is always best for performance. As much as SSDs get faster than HDD accessing data in memory is still significantly faster for most workloads

Hi, I can surely believe that. There have been a lot of compatibility issues with older RAID controllers and SSD disks. Especially “Enterprise” RAID controllers might be rather picky even about HDD you get into them. I remember ones Dell ship at certain time would refuse to work with anything but certified (read overpriced) Hard drives. 840 EVO was also one of the cheapest consumer drives so I’m not surprised they could choke on serious workloads.

I use web site as it is easy enough to compare prices. When it comes to MySQL or MongoDB we use internal storage for systems where maximum performance or price performance is require. There is a lot of virtualization and consolidated storage (SAN etc) is used by the enterprises but typically it is well understood this is not the highest performance/cost performance option but rather one offering more flexibility and high-availability.

Looks like your point with 3PAR is what with 98% endurance left after about 2 years this has not been the problem for you, right ?

Compare costs of formal storage systems SSD vs HDD with high availability etc. Whether it is true enterprise storage or even tier 2 crap, cost differences can be more significant in that space. Or at least compare the cost of say a server from the likes of HPE or Dell with built in SSD vs HDD.

I use Samsung 850 and 950 pro in my laptop(Lenovo P50), HPE uses Sandisk last I heard for most of 3PAR stuff though Samsung may be getting in some of the newer stuff(7-15TB), not sure. 5 year unconditional warranty.

All of my org’s critical mysql DBs run on flash on HPE 3PAR. The oldest flash we have is 22 months at this point and the built in endurance checker says the oldest SSDs have 98% of their write life left in them (they are read intensive SSDs).

Fixed, thanks!

“you might not need to spend also buy a RAID card” -> “you might not need to also buy a RAID card”

Plenty of sarcasm. But performance problems on HDD has been great for my career as person who responds to perf problems. But problems from HDD maybe weren’t fun for people who did database oncall. SSD hides so many of the problems you hit with HDD — schema change was too slow, logical backup consumed too much IO, restores were too slow, transient spikes in demand ran out of IOPs. I miss HDD. Most people wont.

I sense sarcasm here 🙂 But if you want honest answer – I believe giving the best advice to folk whenever I am giving it for free or being paid to give one. If this best advice leads to us getting less business – it is fine by me.

In fact it makes me very proud of our team if we come in to the customer who think he needs 20 servers to do the job but we help them to do it only with 5 – saving the customer money on the serves but also reducing how much we charge for support.

Nothing lasts forever. The fact the Endurance is not published in terms amount of data written does not mean there is no limit how much writes they can handle. Micron has nice Article on this topic https://www.micron.com/about/blogs/2016/february/the-myth-of-hdd-endurance Obviously being in SSD business they might be a bit biased in terms of numbers but general idea stands.