Originally Posted by Blameless
What I would probably do for the HDD setup:
- One ~60-100GB SSD for the OS (or OS and development files) attached right to the ICH10R
- One fast PCI-E SSD in the ~120GB range for development and swap space, or just swap.
- Four, fast, 7200 RPM drives (or velociraptors if you the random access performance is worth the cost), attached to the other ICH10R ports in RAID 10, for your "slow files".
Another option would be two PCI-E SSDs, one for swap and the other for development/OS and six drives in RAID 10 on the ICH10R.
RAID 0, 1, and 10 don't need any parity calculations, so overhead is very minimal and the ICH10R RAID should not be much slower than a HW card, unless you really need more than six drives. The ICH10R is good for upwards of 400-450MB/s.
Also, I would personally be wary of relying on 24GiB of non-ECC memory on a serious job with such a huge amount of data being worked on for an extended period of time. ECC memory is much slower, but shouldn't reduce overall system performance by too much and it might be worth the extra reliability. Problem is that ECC memory would require a Xeon (there are X980 equivalents) and a board with the BIOS settings to enable ECC.
If you do go with standard non-ECC make sure you stress test the crap out of it for a good long time and verify it's error free before you do anything with it that can't tolerate errors/corruption.
Thanks for the suggestions
I had shied away from the PCI-E ssds due to the lack of trim. If I'm getting seperate ssds for OS/swap/development etc. wouldn't I get better performance from a 4xSSD in Raid 10? the 128GB C300s are pretty affordable.
I guess next time I do maintenance on the other machines I'll rip out the HW raid cards that I have in them (9211 and 9260) and save them for the server.
The ECC does seem interesting, I do get random tool crashes every so often, but to be honest I'm not convinced that it's not the tools being buggy. The question is whether it's worth the speed loss. I don't see anything faster than 1333, which is pretty slow compared to the 2000 I'm running now, plus the ECC is supposed to be another 2-3% overhead? I'll run some benchmarks on my tools varying the memory speed and see how much it really affects things.