Jump to content
RESET Forums (homeservershow.com)

System Drive = WHS performance?


pcdoc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anyone experimented with SSD or 10K drives as the system drive and does it noticibly effect the performnace of WHS? If you have tried, would be curious to see the impact. Based on how DE works I would think there would some gain just not sure how much and if it is worthwhile. Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest no-control

see my MonsterBox build log. I had 2 15k SAS drives in a RAID 0 stripe = damn fast....this was server 08 R2 with Hyper-V not just WHS. I have since installed WHS directly on these drives and saw no real world improvement.

I suppose while "on/in?" the WHS box itself you would see an improvement. I would think that a GigE network would be the throughput limit, so over network data is only as fast as the network will allow (in my understanding, I may be wrong).

The only real benefit I can see in moving to SSD or SAS drives is reliability. SSD are non mechanical and the rest are enterprise class drives which may or may not be better built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The area where SSD's excel are in the random seek, or multitasking. Most server activities revolve around getting data or sending data, neither of which are particularly random-seek heavy. However, if you start putting on some add-ons, like My Movies or using it as a web server via Whiist, then you should see some significant improvements in load times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I was thinking this is that data is first copied to the primary drive therefore limiting the effective throughput to what the primary drive can handle. I guess at some point the Gig lan would hinder things. Just a thought I had after reading the article below which I related to how WHS works but I have never experimented with differnt system drives. I routinely copy 20-200 gigs at time so I am just looking for max throughput.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabit-ethernet-bandwidth,2321-7.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment I would hold off on the SSD. The price vs. Speed gain is not there yet. I did mount an OCZ Vertex 120GB SSD drive in my lab setup and the system did boot faster. The WHS system was over all faster but I did not get the ultra fast performance I received om my Windows 7 Dell system. 2010 will be the year where SSDs will take off and mass production will drive the cost down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they still do that? I thought that was no longer the case since PP2. Maybe it was just the errors of copying bigger files got nixed.
Anyway, gigE is technically 125MB/sec, but in reality, you are going to be limited to about 90MB/sec max. Even the caviar green's have a rate that is right at that mark. So I guess you could potentially be able to hit that when writing to the server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HartmannTech,

Thanks for the feedback. I have the Vertex 120 on my Core I7 and it made a big difference as well. You are right though, I will wait it out the capacity is up and the price is down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest no-control

yeah usacomp2k3 is right. PP2 eliminated the "landing pad" concept. Writes (and reads) now occur striaght from the drives where the data is located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have learned something today as I did not know that. I mush have missed that annoucement and still though they where doing the landing pad thing. Thanks for insight and I will dig into that a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've got all sorts of random an only moderately useful information floating in our heads around here. Heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...