MvL Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) Hi, I have a Samsung 840 Pro 256GB as cache drive, but it's way to small. I like to know whats SSD you use/recommend also the size. Do you use just one SSD or a RAID 0/1 solution? Other things to think of? It happend again my SSD was totally full and a few Dockers crashed... Edited April 20, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
unrateable Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 (edited) my few cents; I have used a 750 EVO but the NAND is not durable. Currently I use a CRUCIAL MX500 1TB and it seems excellent price/performance ratio wise (paid ~260 USD). it tends to overheat (probably my bad -airflow since its stuck on the backside of the board against a tower wall) It also feels a bit slower than a Samsung Pro. I´d stick with Samsungs PRO line either SATA or if you need the speed NVMe via PCIe. The PRO line has a higher TBW spec but costs a bit more than the EVO. About size - totally up to you - I had the 750 EVO with 500 and it got too small quickly with all the VMs on it. Edited April 20, 2018 by unrateable 1 Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 Before my posting I considered a 1TB model, because like you said a SSD is very quickly to small. So you don't advice a EVO. I already thought that EVO's are not suitable for server purposes so good that you can confirm. Thanks for the confirmations! Quote Link to comment
doubleohwhatever Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 I've been using these since late 2015: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00M8ABHVQ/ I have had zero problems with them and they haven't been used lightly. My cache array runs eleven dockers and two VMs. One VM is a security camera server. 16 4k cameras are writing to the cache array 24/7 (not motion triggered but 16 24/7 4k h.265 streams). On top of that the cache drive is still used for storage array writes (mover runs nightly). They also survived a 140F temps when a fan failed. They aren't the fastest but they just freaking work. 1 Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Quote I have had zero problems with them and they haven't been used lightly. My cache array runs eleven dockers and two VMs. One VM is a security camera server. 16 4k cameras are writing to the cache array 24/7 (not motion triggered but 16 24/7 4k h.265 streams). On top of that the cache drive is still used for storage array writes (mover runs nightly). They also survived a 140F temps when a fan failed. Interesting! Can you post the S.M.A.R.T values of the SSD? Edited May 7, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
trurl Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 On 4/20/2018 at 1:10 PM, MvL said: 256GB as cache drive, but it's way to small You might reconsider how you use cache. There is no requirement to cache user share writes. Most of the writes to my server are unattended - scheduled backups or queued downloads - and I am not waiting for them to complete anyway. So those user shares aren't cached, don't use up space on cache, don't have to be moved later, and are immediately protected by parity. Quote Link to comment
doubleohwhatever Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 52 minutes ago, MvL said: Interesting! Can you post the S.M.A.R.T values of the SSD? Sure. I've attached two of them. I *think* these are the two oldest drives. SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151740411432-20180507-0825.txt SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151855401818-20180507-0823.txt Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 2 hours ago, trurl said: You might reconsider how you use cache. There is no requirement to cache user share writes. Most of the writes to my server are unattended - scheduled backups or queued downloads - and I am not waiting for them to complete anyway. So those user shares aren't cached, don't use up space on cache, don't have to be moved later, and are immediately protected by parity. Yeah, true. Only it's still not enough. If I have a couple of season of a tv show and a UHD rip the SSD is full. 1 hour ago, doubleohwhatever said: Sure. I've attached two of them. I *think* these are the two oldest drives. SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151740411432-20180507-0825.txt SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151855401818-20180507-0823.txt Thanks. I'll check them! Quote Link to comment
Tybio Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The problem with direct writes (for /me/) is that it causes disks to spin up a lot. In the evening during the TV season I'll get 2-5+ episodes a night, spinning up the drives in a staggered way for each one is pointless when I can cache them and then move them at once. For the Movies share, it would make sense to do that as those tend to be larger and less frequent additions. ie: it is a balance, usage management combined with cache size :). 1 Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, trurl said: You might reconsider how you use cache. There is no requirement to cache user share writes. Most of the writes to my server are unattended - scheduled backups or queued downloads - and I am not waiting for them to complete anyway. So those user shares aren't cached, don't use up space on cache, don't have to be moved later, and are immediately protected by parity. 1 hour ago, Tybio said: The problem with direct writes (for /me/) is that it causes disks to spin up a lot. In the evening during the TV season I'll get 2-5+ episodes a night, spinning up the drives in a staggered way for each one is pointless when I can cache them and then move them at once. For the Movies share, it would make sense to do that as those tend to be larger and less frequent additions. ie: it is a balance, usage management combined with cache size :). Yeah, good one! Maybe it's better to just cache the tv shows and not the movies or other stuff. Then I'll can use it a little longer. At the moment I'll rather prefer to spend my money on a new rack (open or closed) then a couple of SSD's. Then I'll can buy the SSD's 3 -6 months later... Edited May 7, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) SMART Attributes Data Structure revision number: 4 Vendor Specific SMART Attributes with Thresholds: ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAGS VALUE WORST THRESH FAIL RAW_VALUE 5 Reallocated_Sector_Ct -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 9 Power_On_Hours -O--CK 253 100 --- - 19292 12 Power_Cycle_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 31 165 Total_Write/Erase_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 4321327194145 166 Min_W/E_Cycle -O--CK 100 100 --- - 293 167 Min_Bad_Block/Die -O--CK 100 100 --- - 20 168 Maximum_Erase_Cycle -O--CK 100 100 --- - 382 169 Total_Bad_Block -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 171 Program_Fail_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 172 Erase_Fail_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 173 Avg_Write/Erase_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 334 174 Unexpect_Power_Loss_Ct -O--CK 100 100 --- - 11 187 Reported_Uncorrect -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 194 Temperature_Celsius -O---K 049 055 --- - 51 (Min/Max 11/55) 199 SATA_CRC_Error -O--CK 100 100 --- - 0 230 Perc_Write/Erase_Count -O--CK 100 100 --- - 14595092066119 232 Perc_Avail_Resrvd_Space PO--CK 100 100 004 - 100 233 Total_NAND_Writes_GiB -O--CK 100 100 --- - 310422 234 Perc_Write/Erase_Ct_BC -O--CK 100 100 --- - 348690 241 Total_Writes_GiB ----CK 253 253 --- - 138826 242 Total_Reads_GiB ----CK 253 253 --- - 57432 244 Thermal_Throttle -O--CK 000 100 --- - 0 ||||||_ K auto-keep |||||__ C event count ||||___ R error rate |||____ S speed/performance ||_____ O updated online |______ P prefailure warning 19292 hours on that is more as 800 days. So 2 years and 2 months used. 0 reallocated sectors nice! 138826GiB writes that is 138TB ? btw this SSD has TLC memory. Edited May 7, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
pwm Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, doubleohwhatever said: Sure. I've attached two of them. I *think* these are the two oldest drives. SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151740411432-20180507-0825.txt SanDisk_SDSSDHII960G_151855401818-20180507-0823.txt The drives have consumed 47% of expected wear lifetime. The drives have accumulated about 130+ TB of file system writes and 310+ TB of raw flash writes. Since they are 1 TB large, that means about 310 writes / memory cell. Edited May 7, 2018 by pwm Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) Device Statistics (GP Log 0x04) Page Offset Size Value Flags Description 0x01 ===== = = === == General Statistics (rev 2) == 0x01 0x008 4 31 --- Lifetime Power-On Resets 0x01 0x018 6 3123168738799 --- Logical Sectors Written !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 0x01 0x020 6 976967253 --- Number of Write Commands 0x01 0x028 6 953863139911 --- Logical Sectors Read 0x01 0x030 6 265474636 --- Number of Read Commands 0x07 ===== = = === == Solid State Device Statistics (rev 1) == 0x07 0x008 1 47 --- Percentage Used Endurance Indicator !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |||_ C monitored condition met ||__ D supports DSN |___ N normalized value Missed that part. Interesting! Edited May 7, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
pwm Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The evil thing here is that the normal SMART numbers doesn't indicate the wear level. Total_NAND_Writes_GiB could have been given the value 53 out of 100 to indicate the wear level. The majority of SMART software doesn't look at all the extra information. Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 Thanks for the heads up. Quote Link to comment
doubleohwhatever Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The wear on the drives is indeed around 50%. As well as they have performed for me, I'm fine with that. Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 7, 2018 Author Share Posted May 7, 2018 So you can use the drives for 3 - 4 years. If your happy with your SDD's then it's okay! The Sandisks uses TLC memory cells. They are cheaper as the Samsung Pro's but that uses MLC memory cells. If I'm correct MLC memory cells can do more writes. So I have to figure out to go for a cheaper TLC model or a Expensive MLC model... Quote Link to comment
HellDiverUK Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 21 hours ago, trurl said: You might reconsider how you use cache. There is no requirement to cache user share writes. This, until very recently, was THE reason for a cache on unRAID. It's only the past year or so that cache has been used for Docker and the likes. unRAID still isn't fast enough to do direct array writes at gigabit line speed, so using a cache drive for user shares is very much still the main use scenario. Quote Link to comment
bonienl Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 1 hour ago, HellDiverUK said: unRAID still isn't fast enough to do direct array writes at gigabit line speed, Newer hard disks have much higher transfer rates, e.g. my new 10TB disks have an average transfer rate of 200MB/s (max at 270MB/s). Transferring large files directly to the array is limited by my gigabit connection ?. Quote Link to comment
tdallen Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 2 hours ago, HellDiverUK said: unRAID still isn't fast enough to do direct array writes at gigabit line speed, so using a cache drive for user shares is very much still the main use scenario. If you are willing to spin up all your disks it's getting closer. Using Turbowrite I get a minimum of 70MB/s and more typically 90+MB/s. Under optimal conditions (say copying a large BD rip) I frequently get full 1Gb line speeds That's using a mix of 3TB and 6TB disks, and as boniel points out disks are only getting faster. Quote Link to comment
trurl Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Different people use their servers differently, but I think often people just assume they want the faster writing cache gives without really considering the benefits of not caching. Quote Link to comment
MvL Posted May 8, 2018 Author Share Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) A nice thing of the cache disk is that not all drives spin up. I have a couple of drives with tv-shows and if there is a new episode it's nice that it's written to the cache drive. Only I'm not sure how often Sonarr access the tv-shows and thus spin up the drives. Edited May 8, 2018 by MvL Quote Link to comment
pwm Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 I'm running a different route, to keep down spinning disks. I have duplicated the directory trees for a large number of drives in a LMDB database. I have a FUSE app that reads from the database and presents a virtual file system. Really small files are duplicated into the database. Semi-small files are duplicated to an SSD mirror. For larger files, I normally have the first part on SSD. For some special file types, parts of the files are duplicate to SSD - for example all information related to ID3 tags in MP3 files. This means that it's possible to browse the file systems with only the database online. And a media player can scan and index photos or music files based on data cached to SSD - it's not until play time that the FUSE app needs to make requests to the original backing store. I'm currently busy on improving the commit logic for new data. The main reason for the above is that it's part of a distributed backup solution - the backup server does deduplication of unique files and keeps track of which file systems that contained references to the different files. And the backup server can then make sure that photos are distributed to multiple storage locations. Since it's part of a backup system, the files are immutable. So the FUSE app doesn't need to worry about files changing and no longer match the database information. Quote Link to comment
remati Posted May 9, 2018 Share Posted May 9, 2018 Looks like the Samsung 970 Pro nvme drives are out now if you want the latest and greatest. I'll will be replacing my current cache drive which is the famous $99 Black Friday Crucial MX300 750GB sata drive. The new Samsung 970 Pro 512GB nvme drive is smaller but I need the speed for my virtual machines so I just put an order in for one. I know everyone here would recommend dual cache drives in a BTRFS pool so I'll probably order another one soon. I hear along with redundancy with dual matching cache drives you also get faster speeds. Quote Link to comment
khushaal Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 This is a little bit of a moneybags solution, but, if budget isnt an issue then an intel optane 900p add-in card. Added bonus of not taking a slot on my jbod controller either. https://www.intel.ca/content/www/ca/en/products/memory-storage/solid-state-drives/gaming-enthusiast-ssds/optane-900p-series.html I bought a 280gb model for my cache drive and am now regretting not getting the larger one. I want to replace it with the 480gb model but I cant stomach the thought of wasting the existing drive. Didnt take UHD filesize into account when I was sizing my cache. Maybe one day Ill get my 10G network card working with unRaid and actually see useful performance from my cache too. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.