locked
SSD, still not a viable option? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Good Morning everyone and thank you in advance for your input.

     

    the last posts I saw regarding SSD was from this time last year.  Has there been any successful attempts to use an SSD for the OS portion of the WHS?

     

    I am more interested in anything about having the WHS perform absolutely as quickly as possible and with no support for a RAID type of configuration SSD seems to be the optimal solution to mechanical storage.

     

    I have a 65GB SLC SSD layin around, and was actually in process of rebuilding my WHS (homogeneous storage-pool drives 1.5TB x 7, replacing a couple smaller drives that I had mixed in with the 1.5s).

    I realize that the drive size is the bare minimum considered acceptable for the system, but unless the OS drive is being used for ANYTHING else (swap space?), I can't see any downside to not putting the OS on an SSD.

    Those of you that have done this? Successes?  Pitfalls? Don't Do It?

     

    thanks again for any feedback with regard,

     

    -Andrew

    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 3:07 PM

All replies

  • I think you're wasting the performance of the SSD, to be honest (disk performance isn't a serious bottleneck in Windows Home Server), but if you can install on it, I see no reason why it shouldn't work. Windows Home Server will include everything but the 20 GB SYS partition in server storage, however, so you may wind up with data on the SSD. There's no way to control that, I'm afraid.
    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 4:44 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken I certainly appreciate your feedback.  I was unsure about the performance as well, not knowing how many calls are made to the OS at any given time, I assumed that any improvement would yield improvement in overall system performance.

     

    That being said, if I am not going to see the performance gain (like I would installing an XP or 7 OS on an SSD), then I will gladly keep the SSD aside for a laptop or desktop OS solution in the future.

     

    thank you again sir, much appreciate your time.

     

    -Andrew

    Computer Management Solutions

    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:20 PM
  • I agree.

    Does cost per GB a lot of $$ and add no gain and also I don't think the WHS V1 does support TRIM (Windows 7 does it ok, and the Server on which V2 is based will probably do too I think). So performance will even degrade after a while.

    Way better to use if for Windows 7 client.

    And if the SSD doesn't have TRIM it's a waste of $$ no matter what.


    .
    .
    .
    .

    "Ken Warren [MVP]" wrote in message news:36f9625a-0fcc-4ad4-9767-aa8622d868c3@communitybridge.codeplex.com...

    I think you're wasting the performance of the SSD, to be honest (disk performance isn't a serious bottleneck in Windows Home Server), but if you can install on it, I see no reason why it shouldn't work. Windows Home Server*will* include everything but the 20 GB SYS partition in server storage, however, so you may wind up with data on the SSD. There's no way to control that, I'm afraid.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)


    Have a nice day!
    Wednesday, July 28, 2010 5:41 PM
  • sorry, just stumbled over this as googling windows home server SSD.

    the system drive in my windows home server came up as "failing" last night. which has worried me slightly. now looking at the drive metrics, that system drive gets read from or written to every couple of seconds. and has been 24/7 for the last year or two.

    a big hint at trouble was when the otherhalf tried to play some music on the squeezebox system that is run by the squeeze server on the WHS, it wasn't able to maintain streaming for more than 30 seconds, and takes 10-20 seconds to respond to a command.

    the console has been a source of slowness since forever, but since i'm the only one that has to deal with it, i can cope.

    now, i heard someone else mention that your homeserver is only as fast as your system drive. so really it's a need for I/O's per second rather than transfer speed. something at which SSD's really are built for. but if it is going to be punished with continuous I/O to the same group of sectors, is that going to be a longevity problem with cell wearing?

    i have an old ultra scsi raid card and a set of 72GB 15k rpm seagate cheetas. would i be better off raiding up the cheetas in raid0+1 and having that as my system disk than an SSD drive? 

    Monday, September 13, 2010 12:25 PM