Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: MythTV: Users

An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives?

 

 

MythTV users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


tortise at paradise

Mar 14, 2012, 2:29 PM

Post #1 of 17 (2073 views)
Permalink
An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives?

My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.

Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
(faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
seem happy there)

Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.

My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.

There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...

The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.

If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?

Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
their experience?



_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


rongblor at googlemail

Mar 14, 2012, 2:51 PM

Post #2 of 17 (2034 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 14 Mar 2012, at 09:29 PM, tortise <tortise [at] paradise> wrote:

> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>
> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
> seem happy there)
>
> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>
> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>
> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>
> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>
> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>
> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
> their experience?

I've had my backend and database running off SSD for about 12 months now and I will never buy another computer without an SSD. You are right that the main point of improvement is mythweb. Other than that I guess I don't see much direct improvement in mythtv performance and some might argue that with appropriate MySQL tuning and ram you can achieve the same effect. (which I've recently done anyway)

My backend is also my file / web / mail / squeezebox server and vm host and for a 4+ year old core 2 quad with only 4gb ram it performs superbly with the SSD, much better than it did when I ran everything off an hdd.

So my advice is just go with SSD wherever you can these days.

Robert.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


mythtv-list at dinkum

Mar 14, 2012, 5:16 PM

Post #3 of 17 (2032 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 14 Mar 2012, at 22:29, tortise wrote:

> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>
> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
> seem happy there)
>
> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>
> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>
> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>
> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>
> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>
> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
> their experience?

I have an SSD an "old" "slow" Intel 120GB, as / /var & /home I find mythweb page refresh to be as good as instantaneous (with 6TB of HD recordings), database is significantly faster re-schedules are almost instant. Opening the recordings screen in Arclight is fast, a second or so, before it was ~30s before anything could be done.

I also have a diskless frontend netbooting from the SSD and this seems to make no difference to performance of the backend, before when the frontend was booted from a magnetic disk there was some slowdown when the frontend was running.

I find I must run disktrim manually every few weeks to keep performance high, I believe that Ubuntu 10.10 doesn't support background trim directly.

I'm running 0.24 on Ubuntu 10.10 64 bit, netbooted FE is 10.10 32bit, at the time Nvidia drivers were not good for 64bit and a GT430.

I don't think you need a large SSD, mine is mostly empty, 80GB or even 40GB at a squeeze would be ok. I keep the fanart etc on SSD too, seems to prevent a lot of seeking on the recordings drives.

Wouldn't have a Laptop, Desktop or Server without an SSD now.

Andre
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


ron at ronfrazier

Mar 14, 2012, 5:40 PM

Post #4 of 17 (2026 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:29 PM, tortise <tortise [at] paradise> wrote:
...snip a bunch of stuff about SSDs...
> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
> differently?  I presume some people have now done this, what has been
> their experience?

Look up my thread from about a month or two ago where I discussed my
switch to an SSD. I reported my findings, some others agreed with me,
while others said you can get the same with some mysql tuning (which
was discussed in detail in the thread).

As for SATA 2 vs 3, the real world speed of each is 300 MB/sec vs 600 MB/sec

--
Ron Frazier
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


newbury at mandamus

Mar 14, 2012, 6:50 PM

Post #5 of 17 (2018 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 03/14/2012 08:16 PM, Andre wrote:

> I don't think you need a large SSD, mine is mostly empty, 80GB or even 40GB at a squeeze would be ok. I keep the fanart etc on SSD too, seems to prevent a lot of seeking on the recordings drives.
>
> Wouldn't have a Laptop, Desktop or Server without an SSD now.

I'm with Andre. I have SSD's now in all the boxen except for one backup
storage box which only takes one drive.

I would love it if the manufacturers built a superfast small SSD. My
mythbox setup could fit in 10G. var and /usr/local are both under 1G,
/home (with the mysql database) is almost 500M, and the rest is only 4.1G.

Geoff


_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


Douglas_Peale at comcast

Mar 14, 2012, 7:13 PM

Post #6 of 17 (2025 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 2012/03/14 02:29 PM, tortise wrote:
> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>
> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
> seem happy there)
>
> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>
> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>
> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>
> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>
> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>
> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
> their experience?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
I have been using a SSD as a boot disk for a while now.

Pros: I no longer have corrupted recordings due to the disk taking too long to respond (database was swamping the HDD)

Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.26 KB)


mythtv-list at dinkum

Mar 14, 2012, 7:50 PM

Post #7 of 17 (2021 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 15 Mar 2012, at 03:13, Douglas Peale wrote:

> On 2012/03/14 02:29 PM, tortise wrote:
>> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
>> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>>
>> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
>> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
>> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
>> seem happy there)
>>
>> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
>> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>>
>> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
>> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>>
>> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
>> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>>
>> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
>> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>>
>> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
>> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
>> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
>> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
>> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
>> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
>> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>>
>> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
>> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
>> their experience?
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mythtv-users mailing list
>> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>
> I have been using a SSD as a boot disk for a while now.
>
> Pros: I no longer have corrupted recordings due to the disk taking too long to respond (database was swamping the HDD)
>
> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.

Ah yes, forgot to mention this, in my defence I very rarely reboot. Ubuntu has some race problems on booting, I found that I needed to put all the recording drive mounts in to rc.local rather than fstab then it booted reliably, I also have to remember not to log in straight away or myth-backend won't be running yet as my tuner cards take a while to initialise.

Nice problem to have :-)

Andre
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


pjrobinson at metronet

Mar 15, 2012, 3:09 AM

Post #8 of 17 (2011 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 15/03/12 02:50, Andre wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2012, at 03:13, Douglas Peale wrote:
>
>> On 2012/03/14 02:29 PM, tortise wrote:
>>> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
>>> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>>>
>>> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
>>> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
>>> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
>>> seem happy there)
>>>
>>> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
>>> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>>>
>>> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
>>> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>>>
>>> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
>>> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>>>
>>> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
>>> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>>>
>>> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
>>> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
>>> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
>>> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
>>> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
>>> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
>>> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>>>
>>> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
>>> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
>>> their experience?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mythtv-users mailing list
>>> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>>> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>>
>> I have been using a SSD as a boot disk for a while now.
>>
>> Pros: I no longer have corrupted recordings due to the disk taking too long to respond (database was swamping the HDD)
>>
>> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
>> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.
> Ah yes, forgot to mention this, in my defence I very rarely reboot. Ubuntu has some race problems on booting, I found that I needed to put all the recording drive mounts in to rc.local rather than fstab then it booted reliably, I also have to remember not to log in straight away or myth-backend won't be running yet as my tuner cards take a while to initialise.
>
> Nice problem to have :-)
>
> Andre
> _______________________________________________
>
I've been running my mythtv 8.10 FE/BE system for several years now with
a 30MB SSD for boot and everything but /var/lib/mythtv on which is
mounted a standard HDD. I've had no problems including running it in
shut down in idle mode. No changes from the standard install other than
shut down mode and other features not connected with using an SSD. My
new 11.10 system in development has a similar configuration using a 60MB
SSD and 1TB HDD RAID-1 for mythtv recordings etc.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


mythtv-users at lists

Mar 15, 2012, 4:57 AM

Post #9 of 17 (2008 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

Douglas Peale wrote:
> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.

Are you sure that the SSD causes this? I have this problem maybe once a
month without using an SSD. Ubuntu complains about not being able to
mount the root filesystem or some similar message.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


Douglas_Peale at comcast

Mar 15, 2012, 8:04 AM

Post #10 of 17 (2010 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 2012/03/15 03:09 AM, PJR wrote:
> On 15/03/12 02:50, Andre wrote:
>> On 15 Mar 2012, at 03:13, Douglas Peale wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012/03/14 02:29 PM, tortise wrote:
>>>> My Server's OS/Database HDD is possibly showing signs of aging being an
>>>> older and noisier 7200 120G that's got a few bad sectors reallocated.
>>>>
>>>> Having found SSD on frontends give a significant user speed upgrade
>>>> (faster on/off and faster menu responses) I am now considering replacing
>>>> the backend OS drive with an SSD. (Also 3 x 2TB drives for recordings
>>>> seem happy there)
>>>>
>>>> Some of the new 6G series 3 SSD's such as the Adata S510's seem a
>>>> possible replacement, capable of 550/510MB read and write speeds.
>>>>
>>>> My motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP31-DS3L)is a SATA 2 which I understand to
>>>> mean it can transfer 3Gb/s over the SATA interface.
>>>>
>>>> There seems little point in spending extra on SDD's that run faster than
>>>> the SATA II interface, unless there is no disadvantage...
>>>>
>>>> The b and B's might be confused somewhere, however it seems the full
>>>> 550/510MB read and writes may be available on the SATA II interface.
>>>>
>>>> If one uses a SSD on a backend (no frontend use) then the only
>>>> difference I expect I am going to see is faster mythweb page loads,
>>>> which might be nice for the recordings page. The frontend recordings
>>>> lists might also populate quicker. This basically assumes the database
>>>> reads are read from the disc and not from RAM, my understanding is its
>>>> done from the disc, if so there seems considerable scope for speeding up
>>>> the user experience that relies on the myriad of reads?
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone comment about this analysis, do you agree or see it
>>>> differently? I presume some people have now done this, what has been
>>>> their experience?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mythtv-users mailing list
>>>> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
>>>> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>>>>
>>> I have been using a SSD as a boot disk for a while now.
>>>
>>> Pros: I no longer have corrupted recordings due to the disk taking too long to respond (database was swamping the HDD)
>>>
>>> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
>>> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.
>> Ah yes, forgot to mention this, in my defence I very rarely reboot. Ubuntu has some race problems on booting, I found that I needed to put all the recording drive mounts in to rc.local rather than fstab then it booted reliably, I also have to remember not to log in straight away or myth-backend won't be running yet as my tuner cards take a while to initialise.
>>
>> Nice problem to have :-)
>>
>> Andre
>> _______________________________________________
>>
> I've been running my mythtv 8.10 FE/BE system for several years now with
> a 30MB SSD for boot and everything but /var/lib/mythtv on which is
> mounted a standard HDD. I've had no problems including running it in
> shut down in idle mode. No changes from the standard install other than
> shut down mode and other features not connected with using an SSD. My
> new 11.10 system in development has a similar configuration using a 60MB
> SSD and 1TB HDD RAID-1 for mythtv recordings etc.
> _______________________________________________
> mythtv-users mailing list
> mythtv-users [at] mythtv
> http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
>
I believe it has something to do with the combination of SSD boot drive and raid mirror standard drive has a home directory. The
SSD boot so fast it tries to access the raid before it is ready.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.26 KB)


mythtv at rtr

Mar 15, 2012, 3:29 PM

Post #11 of 17 (1996 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 12-03-14 05:51 PM, Robert Longbottom wrote:
..
> I've had my backend and database running off SSD for about 12 months now and I will never buy another computer without an SSD. You are right that the main point of improvement is mythweb. Other than that I guess I don't see much direct improvement in mythtv performance and some might argue that with appropriate MySQL tuning and ram you can achieve the same effect. (which I've recently done anyway)
> My backend is also my file / web / mail / squeezebox server and vm host and for a 4+ year old core 2 quad with only 4gb ram it performs superbly with the SSD, much better than it did when I ran everything off an hdd.
> So my advice is just go with SSD wherever you can these days.

Echo that advice here, too!

And I specifically recommend any OCZ-branded SSD based on the Sandforce controller chips,
because OCZ has a very good (and simple) firmware-updater for use on Linux systems.

Cheers
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


mythtv at rtr

Mar 15, 2012, 3:33 PM

Post #12 of 17 (1997 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 12-03-14 10:50 PM, Andre wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2012, at 03:13, Douglas Peale wrote:
>> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
>> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.
>
> Ah yes, forgot to mention this, in my defence I very rarely reboot. Ubuntu has some race problems on booting, I found that I needed to put all the recording drive mounts in to rc.local rather than fstab then it booted reliably, I also have to remember not to log in straight away or myth-backend won't be running yet as my tuner cards take a while to initialise.


Yeah, both the Ubuntu initramfs images and their init/upstart scripts
have numerous race conditions.

Even without the SSD I can sometimes get my system here to fail at boot,
but with the SSD it was a regular occurance until I rewrote many of the scripts.

Cheers
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


mythtv at rtr

Mar 15, 2012, 3:34 PM

Post #13 of 17 (1999 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 12-03-15 07:57 AM, Thomas Boehm wrote:
> Douglas Peale wrote:
>> Cons: Ubuntu does not boot reliably with a SSD. About one in 5 boots hangs dumping me into busybox, and I must type exit to
>> continue the boot. This is a problem because I let my system shut down when idle.
>
> Are you sure that the SSD causes this? I have this problem maybe once a
> month without using an SSD. Ubuntu complains about not being able to
> mount the root filesystem or some similar message.

Yup, that one happens with or without an SSD. Buggy.
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


jyavenard at gmail

Mar 15, 2012, 4:08 PM

Post #14 of 17 (2004 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 16 March 2012 09:29, Mark Lord <mythtv [at] rtr> wrote:

> And I specifically recommend any OCZ-branded SSD based on the Sandforce controller chips,
> because OCZ has a very good (and simple) firmware-updater for use on Linux systems.

Funny, *most* of the early failure reports I have been reading of late
are OCZ drive...
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


briandlong at gmail

Mar 16, 2012, 6:32 AM

Post #15 of 17 (1975 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard <jyavenard [at] gmail>wrote:

> On 16 March 2012 09:29, Mark Lord <mythtv [at] rtr> wrote:
>
> > And I specifically recommend any OCZ-branded SSD based on the Sandforce
> controller chips,
> > because OCZ has a very good (and simple) firmware-updater for use on
> Linux systems.
>
> Funny, *most* of the early failure reports I have been reading of late
> are OCZ drive...
>

Yes, OCZ has put a funny taste in many people's mouths because of their
drawn-out Windows BSOD issues on their newer Sandforce drives. I've stuck
with Crucial C300 and M4 SSD's which I believe use a Marvell controller and
they've been great. The M4 recently had a firmware update which I applied
even though I was not affected by the issue they explained in the release
notes.

I've dealt with one OCZ Vertex 3 on my Dad's laptop and it worked fine with
Windows 7, but when I bought it I knew about the BSOD issue and immediately
applied their latest firmware (last Aug/Sept).

/Brian/


mythtv at rtr

Mar 16, 2012, 3:08 PM

Post #16 of 17 (1967 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On 12-03-15 07:08 PM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote:
> On 16 March 2012 09:29, Mark Lord <mythtv [at] rtr> wrote:
>
>> And I specifically recommend any OCZ-branded SSD based on the Sandforce controller chips,
>> because OCZ has a very good (and simple) firmware-updater for use on Linux systems.
>
> Funny, *most* of the early failure reports I have been reading of late
> are OCZ drive...


No question they're a bleeding edge company, so yeah, wait for firmware stability
on any particular model. Right now, they seem to have achieved that for all
of their existing Sandforce based products. No updates since last fall.

And when they do issue an update, one doesn't have to figure out how to boot
some strange commerical O/S just to apply it. :)

They support Linux. Rare.

Cheers
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users


gary.buhrmaster at gmail

Mar 16, 2012, 3:24 PM

Post #17 of 17 (1965 views)
Permalink
Re: An SSD for Backend OS / Database Drives? [In reply to]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 22:08, Mark Lord <mythtv [at] rtr> wrote:
....
> And when they do issue an update, one doesn't have to figure out how to boot
> some strange commerical O/S just to apply it.  :)
>
> They support Linux.  Rare.

Intel supports firmware updates via a standalone ISO.
Not native linux support, but since you need to power
cycle the SSD anyway to load the new firmware
(and I prefer to not be running an OS accessing the
drive during firmware updates), it is a reasonable
way to go in my opinion (Intel does have a Windows
only tool too, but last I knew still documented that
the ISO was the recommended solution). Of course
the ISO is x86 code, so if you are using their SSDs
on Power, or Itanium, or Sparc, or ... processors
you will have other challenges.

Gary
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users [at] mythtv
http://www.mythtv.org/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

MythTV users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.