Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Woman buys gun for defence then accidently shoots herself on way home||
|Brown Ferguson: Jury decision not to charge sparks riot||
|Project CARS - Community Assisted Racing Simulator||
|Woman Steals Car, Unintentionally Levels a Building||
|GIS software - how good is it at using multicore och GPU - really?||
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:23
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:25
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:28
The SSD MTBF way surprasses the technological life of the device to be concerned with beating it up. They're just more expensive than needed so i would always recommend large drives for bulk storage.
Are you running SQL server on SBS? if so, it will love SSDs.. otherwise its just a cost measure.
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:33
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:34
Posted 29 October 2012 - 19:36
i have this running on my home server, 2x 128GB SSD drives in mirror raid. No issues that i can tell.
Posted 29 October 2012 - 20:48
Posted 29 October 2012 - 20:52
Posted 29 October 2012 - 21:10
Yep, on my home server running Windows Server 2012, I have 2x Kingston V+200 120GB SSDs running in RAID 1. 1GB/s FTW!
Posted 29 October 2012 - 22:29
How do you figure? That drive's spec is (read) 300/MBs so a RAID1 best case would give you 600MBs, if your interface and controller aren't the bottleneck which I'll wager they are.
I would go at least RAID10 if its production, I really question if RAID1 write performance will meet the IOPs needed by the SBS databases (unless you followed recommendations and moved SQL to a separate box).
120GB really isn't enough for a living SBS install either.
Posted 31 October 2012 - 18:03
Posted 01 November 2012 - 13:55