That sounds very low for modern SSDs, even consumer-grade. Have you tried different vendors?
see: https://www.anandtech.com/show/6459/samsung-ssd-840-testing-...
You're best bet for long-term reliability is to buy much more capacity than you need and try not to exceed >50% capacity for high write frequency situations. I keep an empty drive around to use as a temp directory for compiling, logging, temp files, etc.
Also, my understanding is that consumer-grade drive need a "cool down" period to allow them to perform wear leveling. So you don't want to be writing to these drives constantly.
I plan on using a couple of those as ZFS metadata and small block caches for my home NAS, we'll see how it goes but people generally and universally praise the SLC SSDs for their durability.
> You're best bet for long-term reliability is to buy much more capacity than you need and try not to exceed >50% capacity for high write frequency situations. I keep an empty drive around to use as a temp directory for compiling, logging, temp files, etc.
That's likely true. I am pondering buying one external NVMe SSD for that purpose exactly.
Which brand/spec?
Vtran / eVtran. They have favourable reviews, too.
Every build gets fully tested at maximum TRACE logging, so that anyone who looks at the build / test later can search the logs for the bug.
8TBs of storage is a $200 hard drive. Fill it up, save everything. Buy 5 hard drives, copy data across them redundantly with ZFS and stuff.
1TBs of SSD storage is $100 (for 4GBps) to $200 (for 7GBps). Copy data from the hard drive array on the build server to the local workstation as you try to debug what went wrong in some unit test.
100% utilization and 30x the bandwidth = 30x as many HDD. Alternatively, if HDD’s are an option you’re a long way from 100% utilization.
Anyway, reasonably available SSDs have up to [1000 x SSD size] total write limit, so doing couple of 400G builds/day would use up the 1TB drive in 3 years. At worst times we had to develop&maintain 5 releases in parallel instead of regular 2-3.
(See e.g. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Ko5Grx7WzFZAXk6do4SSf8-128..., from Tom's Hardware)
They only really slow down in usage patterns that trash traditional HDD’s, which have much worse disk fragmentation issues.
Pair it with an Optane for L2 cache and it will speed up normal SSD use too ;)
- It can pre-populate an in-memory disk cache. Not massively useful, but depending on your workload and uptime it might save some time. Nothing I know of does this on Linux.
- It can act as a level 2 block cache, i.e. caching frequently accessed blocks from slow (HDD) storage on fast (SSD) storage. This is massively useful, especially for e.g. a Steam library.
- It can force extensive write buffering, using either main memory or SSD.
And yes, it can also act as a block buffer in main memory, but I don't find that helpful. Windows' default file cache does a good enough job, and Linux' VFS cache works even better. (Though ZFS' ARC works better yet...)Its write bufferin increases write speeds massively, inasmuch as it delays actually writing out data. Obviously, doing so with main memory means a crash will lose data; what's not so obvious (but amply explained in the UI) is that, because it's a block-based write buffer, it can also corrupt your filesystem. Primocache does not obey write barriers in this mode.
What's even less obvious, and where it differs from lvmcache / bcache, is that this still happens if you use only an L2 write buffer, not a memory-based one. The data will still be there, on the SSD, but Primocache apparently doesn't restore the write-buffer state on bootup. Possibly it's not even journalled correctly; I don't know, I just got the impression from forums that fixing this would be difficult.
So, overall, bcache / lvmcache / ZFS* are all massively superior. Primocache is your only option on Windows, however, unless you'd like to setup iSCSI or something. I've considered that, but I'd need at least a 10G link to get worthwhile performance.
*: ZFS supports cache-on-SSD, and unlike a year ago that's persisted across reboots, but it doesn't support write-buffer-on-ssd. Except in the form of the SIL, which is of dubious usefulness; that buffer is only used for synchronous writes.
However, ZFS is a transaction-oriented filesystem. It never reorders writes between transaction groups, which means that if you run it with sync=disabled -- which disables fsync & related calls -- it's still impossible to get locally visible corruption. The state of your filesystem at bootup will be some* valid POSIX state, as if the machine was suddenly but cleanly shut down. You still need to tweak the filesystem parameters; by default transaction groups end after 5 seconds, which is unlikely to be optimal.
Alternately, you can run it on top of lvmcache or bcache.
In my experience the SMART data on SSDs is pretty good at pointing to failures.
Either that or the SSD simply disappears from the system. But that happens to HDDs also.