

Where SSDs Don't Make Sense in Server Applications - neilc
http://perspectives.mvdirona.com/2009/04/12/WhereSSDsDontMakeSenseInServerApplications.aspx

======
10ren
A 2008 Sun article sees Flash as having the following position in the server
storage hierarchy: cache, DRAM, Flash, disk, tape:
<http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/not_a_flash_in_the>

Which is what the present article is talking about in this line:

 _The benefits of SSDs as an intermediate caching tier are also limited, and
the cost of provisioning such a tier was justified for fewer than 10% of the
examined workloads_

------
andr
I guess the real questions is are SSDs good enough to replace data that now
sits in RAM? For example, Google keeps their entire search index in RAM. Would
they be better off keeping it in SSDs?

~~~
wheels
Not even close. The bandwidths of RAM vs. SSDs differ by a couple orders of
magnitude.

~~~
krschultz
Especially with the Intel X-25 at around $4.50 per GB and DDR2 running at $10
per GB - there just isn't much of a cost savings for completely disparate
performance.

~~~
wmf
When you calculate the price of RAM, consider the slots as well. Putting a TB
of RAM in a server requires more than just DIMMs.

------
kubrick
Shouldn't he wait until the cost comes down and settles a bit before he
bothers writing a whole screed about the expense? It's like decrying the HDTV
as not worth the money -- they're over $10,000 each! Or, they were, a few
years ago.

~~~
neilc
Well, obviously the price of SSDs will change in the future, but the question
is whether they are a good idea for server workloads _now_ , not in 2 or 3
years.

