Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Corsair Force MP500 240GB M.2 SSD On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic Corsair Force MP500 240GB M.2 SSD On Linux

    Corsair Force MP500 240GB M.2 SSD On Linux

    Phoronix: Corsair Force MP500 240GB M.2 SSD On Linux

    I picked up a Corsair Force MP500 NVMe M.2 solid-state drive for one of the new test systems in the Phoronix lab and so I ran some benchmarks on this high-performance drive compared to a few other SSDs.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=24787

  • caligula
    replied
    Originally posted by mbello View Post

    I did not mean any specific article. There is plenty of discussion on the net about this. In RAID 5, once you lose a disk it is as if you were running RAID-0 with your disks. To restore an array of 10TB disks it will take enough time to be scared about.

    Unless you have a backup array in sync, RAID5 as you suggest is not very safe.
    RAID cannot ever replace backups. Imagine accidents such as fire burning the whole house down. You'll need off-site backups. With a sufficiently sophisticated filesystem, filling a 10 TB disk takes a bit over a day. 2 TB will be ready in 6 hours, 3 TB 9 hours. Assuming the raid arrays are 100% full. I'm willing to bet on that. My home RAID has 3 TB disks and around 40% free, few unused spares are sitting in the empty hotplug drive bays, powered off with hdparm. I get an SMS if a disk fails. I find it highly unlikely that two disks will crash in ~5 hours + hour or two when typing the magic commands for replacing disks via ssh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brane215
    replied
    Sure, sure. From that perspective, no array is very safe. And since you need the backup ( at least of essential stuff) anyway, what's the big deal ?

    I've been running 10-disc RAID5 and RAID6 arrays for some time and I could always "smell" incoming troubles before the disk actually failed. And even on failed disks, I could recover most of the data.

    Also, I plan to use RAID5 in that scheme as an everyday cache of much bigger archive array. So, even if one of the disks fail, backup availability is guaranteed, except maybe for latest data.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbello
    replied
    Originally posted by Brane215 View Post

    No need. Been there, read that. That article is crap.
    I did not mean any specific article. There is plenty of discussion on the net about this. In RAID 5, once you lose a disk it is as if you were running RAID-0 with your disks. To restore an array of 10TB disks it will take enough time to be scared about.

    Unless you have a backup array in sync, RAID5 as you suggest is not very safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brane215
    replied
    Originally posted by mbello View Post
    Brane215 I am sorry but RAID5 with 10TB drives is useless. Search for "raid 5 is dead" to know why.
    No need. Been there, read that. That article is crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • P-I H
    replied
    I'm running SQLite v3.16.2.

    There are 3 disks on the computer: Samsung NVME SSD 960 EVO M.2, Samsung SSD 850 EVO and SanDisk Ultra II.
    AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Eight-Core testing with a MSI B350 TOMAHAWK (MS-7A34) v1.0 and MSI AMD Radeon R9 285/380 4096MB on Ubuntu 17.10 via the Phoronix Test Suite.
    Generated by Phoronix Test Suite v7.2.0 (Trysil) on 2017-06-17 08:13:37.

    However only the result on the SanDisk (34.95) is shown.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbello
    replied
    Brane215 I am sorry but RAID5 with 10TB drives is useless. Search for "raid 5 is dead" to know why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brane215
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    That's a lot of porn right there.

    /sarcasm
    It's for noble goal. If some archeological expedition in distant future unearths my stash, how will they learn about our social life if not through BangBro's materials ? ;o)


    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
    I like Samsung's 961, which should be just a tad below 960 Pro, but significantly cheaper.
    I'm thinking about Ryzen 7 combo with Asrock Taichi board, two 1 TB M.2 sticks in RAID0 as a block cache, 4x16GB RAM, some 4x10 TB HDD in RAID5 as working RAID and a bunch of 10TB drives as sort of archival storage on JBOD. And a nice Infiniband interface+ 10G Eth...
    That's a lot of porn right there.

    /sarcasm

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by caligula View Post
    When comparing 256 GB drives, the 960 EVO is actually a lot cheaper..
    Prices at physical retailers may be much different than on teh internetz as they want to get rid of older stuff first, especially in IT products.

    Large online retailers won't care even if they had to nuke their whole stock of 950, so prices are handled differently.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X