what is usable space in SoftRaid 3x120 GB SSD

[freecartoonporn]

i am looking at another soyoustart server which says

SoftRaid 3x120 GB SSD

as Disk.

so what is the actual usable space will be there on server ?

is it 120 GB ?

or

360 GB ?


thanks

[NatalieK]

wondering, why don´t you message the company?

I´d have thought one is the back up, the raid. The other two are split, one is for content, the public_html & the other, DB & programs...


Although, saying this, where would the raid back up for both ssd´s go, maybe 2 back ups & a 120gb disc for you

[freecartoonporn]

bcoz company takes time to reply.

[Paul&John]

Not sure if its the same Softraid they are talking about ( https://eshop.macsales.com/item/SoftRAID/SOFTRAID5RTL/ ):
SoftRAID offers 5 RAID levels: RAID 0, 1, 4, 5 and 1+0.

So it depends which level do they have.. I've a RAID1 on my system which is basically mirroring, so in your case that would mean 120gb.
Also maybe under SoftRaid they are talking about 'software raid' so RAID is handled by software not by a designated hardware.. but I don't think that's the case here.

[rowan]

RAID0: 360GB. One drive failure kills the array and you lose everything. Do NOT use this level.
RAID1: 120GB. Can handle two drive failures without losing data. This will be best for data integrity because there's three straight copies of the data stored.
RAID5: 240GB. Can handle one drive failure without losing data.

Actual usable space will be lower because of SSD overprovisioning and file system tables.

Do you actually need SSD?

[rowan]

Originally Posted by GspotProductions

I´d have thought one is the back up, the raid. The other two are split, one is for content, the public_html & the other, DB & programs...

Although, saying this, where would the raid back up for both ssd´s go, maybe 2 back ups & a 120gb disc for you

What on earth are you on about?

[freecartoonporn]

Originally Posted by rowan

RAID0: 360GB. One drive failure kills the array and you lose everything. Do NOT use this level.
RAID1: 120GB. Can handle two drive failures without losing data. This will be best for data integrity because there's three straight copies of the data stored.
RAID5: 240GB. Can handle one drive failure without losing data.

Actual usable space will be lower because of SSD overprovisioning and file system tables.

Do you actually need SSD?

thanks

looks like i have to contact them for more details like what RAID they are using .

and yes ssd is a must, too many db queries.

[rowan]

Originally Posted by freecartoonporn

looks like i have to contact them for more details like what RAID they are using .

and yes ssd is a must, too many db queries.

Cool, just so long as your database activity is mostly reads, because a bunch of writes is going to kill your SSD very quickly. I discovered (the hard way) that my server was doing all these little debug log writes which resulted in rapid wear and tear. Two brand new SSDs in a RAID1 mirror died after only 9 months. Based on their guaranteed spec they should have died after about 3!

[freecartoonporn]

Originally Posted by rowan

Cool, just so long as your database activity is mostly reads, because a bunch of writes is going to kill your SSD very quickly. I discovered (the hard way) that my server was doing all these little debug log writes which resulted in rapid wear and tear. Two brand new SSDs in a RAID1 mirror died after only 9 months. Based on their guaranteed spec they should have died after about 3!

damn, this is new .

and i was thinking ssd are for lifetime.,

but ill be doin 90% reads and 10% writes.,
and the ram is 16 gigs , so db doesnt fit in ram, and that is why i am going for ssd. for quicker data lookups

if i had ram 64 gigs then i would have settled for spinning disks.

[rowan]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that in a normal situation your SSD is going to die after a year, but you do need to be more aware that every write will (slightly) reduce the life of your SSD. This is completely different to a HDD which can write the same area a million times over and still be fine.

I have found that SSDs tend to fail suddenly and absolutely (eg total brick, not detected by the BIOS), whereas HDDs often give you some hints they're not feeling so good (excessive access delays, clicking etc)

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by rowan

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that in a normal situation your SSD is going to die after a year, but you do need to be more aware that every write will (slightly) reduce the life of your SSD. This is completely different to a HDD which can write the same area a million times over and still be fine.

I have found that SSDs tend to fail suddenly and absolutely (eg total brick, not detected by the BIOS), whereas HDDs often give you some hints they're not feeling so good (excessive access delays, clicking etc)

Indeed one of my regular HDDs in that RAID1 just failed this weekend but first it was clicking, slowing down and there were SMART alerts too.. hopefully my system SSD won't brick anytime soon.. however as far as I've read on regular PCs they don't have a problem.

[freecartoonporn]

Originally Posted by rowan

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that in a normal situation your SSD is going to die after a year, but you do need to be more aware that every write will (slightly) reduce the life of your SSD. This is completely different to a HDD which can write the same area a million times over and still be fine.

I have found that SSDs tend to fail suddenly and absolutely (eg total brick, not detected by the BIOS), whereas HDDs often give you some hints they're not feeling so good (excessive access delays, clicking etc)

i hear ya.