Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Shells Virtual Desktop
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Server.net
CPLicense.net
VPS Server
Buy VPN
Vultr
VMs for AI
HostDare
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
InterServer VPS
BMail.ag - Secure Email Service
Best VPN
High-Performance Bare Metal Server Solutions
Karvl.com
Server Mania Cloud Hosting
DataWagon Hosting
AlphaVPS Hosting
Evoxt.com
Clouvider
VPS Hosting with NVMe
Residential IPs in the US & 4G Mobile Proxies in EU & US with Unlimited Bandwidth
ReliableSite White-Label Dedicated Hosting for Resellers
Rabisu - Hosting Solutions
Shells Virtual Desktop

Categories

In this Discussion

Home › Requests
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

1tb SSD server wanted (not cached)

dshdsh Member
in Requests

I'm looking for a 1tb ssd only storage server. No ssd cached servers.
2 core 2gb is enough.

USA west or midwest. Budget 10$/m

Comments

  • vinhaisvinhais Member

    buyvm

  • cu_ollycu_olly Member

    Contabo storage VPS will be your best choice.

  • emghemgh Member, Megathread Squad

    I think you’ll have to 1,5-2x your budget

    Anyway, @oplink

  • CalinCalin Member

    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    @Calin said:
    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

    Because RAM is not persistent. If your OS gets stuck/rebooted or main node gets rebooted, you data is gone.

  • Not_OlesNot_Oles Member, Patron Provider

    @Calin said:
    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

    @FlorinMarian said:

    @Calin said:
    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

    Because RAM is not persistent. If your OS gets stuck/rebooted or main node gets rebooted, you data is gone.

    I'm not an expert on this issue of file system caching, but aren't there many frequently used filesystems which cache within the filesystem code while writing to SSDs or other disk types? I mean that the file system's write command returns prior to the write to the SSD being fully completed. Depending on what file system is in use and on how that file system is configured, it might be really rare these days to see file systems set not to return until the write actually is fully completed.

    I am guessing that all this caching within the filesystem came about because of efforts to increase perceived performance at the expense of reliability during rare power failures or other incidents. I am guessing that, in many cases, there is still going to be power failure data loss from incomplete writes, even writes to an SSD.

    Is anybody aware of a current Linux filesystem which can be set for writes not to return until the actual write to non-volatile memory is fully completed? If yes, what is the performance penalty of the setting? Thanks!

  • bacloudbacloud Member, Host Rep

    Why not 7$?

  • satoriksatorik Member
    edited June 2024

    @Not_Oles I'm not sure if this is what you said, but you could test the "sync" and "async" mount options yourself to see the performance. By default, partitions are mounted as "async".
    https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/146620/difference-between-sync-and-async-mount-options

    Thanked by 1Not_Oles
  • FlorinMarianFlorinMarian Member, Host Rep

    @Not_Oles said:

    @Calin said:
    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

    @FlorinMarian said:

    @Calin said:
    Hello , why you don t put cache to ram memory? It's more better that SSD

    Because RAM is not persistent. If your OS gets stuck/rebooted or main node gets rebooted, you data is gone.

    I'm not an expert on this issue of file system caching, but aren't there many frequently used filesystems which cache within the filesystem code while writing to SSDs or other disk types? I mean that the file system's write command returns prior to the write to the SSD being fully completed. Depending on what file system is in use and on how that file system is configured, it might be really rare these days to see file systems set not to return until the write actually is fully completed.

    I am guessing that all this caching within the filesystem came about because of efforts to increase perceived performance at the expense of reliability during rare power failures or other incidents. I am guessing that, in many cases, there is still going to be power failure data loss from incomplete writes, even writes to an SSD.

    Is anybody aware of a current Linux filesystem which can be set for writes not to return until the actual write to non-volatile memory is fully completed? If yes, what is the performance penalty of the setting? Thanks!

    Let's take them one by one:

    You have a large capacity HDD pool and you want to optimize its write/read speed:
    Reading:

    • it also works with single disk because if the single SSD crashes you can get the basic information from the main pool anyway, even if at low speeds as if you had no cache left
    • it also works in the RAM memory according to the same rules as above

    Writing:

    • if you write for the first time on a single SSD and it crashes, the data in the main pool will not be accurate (corrupt/incomplete)
    • if you write for the first time on a RAID1 SSD pool and a SSD crashes, the data in the main pool will not be affected because the data will be written from the remaining SSD
    • if you write in memory and the VM resets before the writing is finished, the data in the main pool will not be accurate (corrupt/incomplete)

    Therefore, neither as hosts nor as clients, we want anyone to have a write cache other than RAID1, and the read cache is welcome, whatever it is.

    Thanked by 1Not_Oles
  • danblazedanblaze Member

    @crunchbits I'm sure there's something purist here, basically a bare metal passthrough exclusive 1TB NVME.

    https://crunchbits.com/vds/nvme

    The only problem is that your budget needs to be doubled.

    Thanked by 2crunchbits Not_Oles
  • crunchbitscrunchbits Member, Patron Provider, Top Host

    @danblaze said:
    @crunchbits I'm sure there's something purist here, basically a bare metal passthrough exclusive 1TB NVME.

    https://crunchbits.com/vds/nvme

    The only problem is that your budget needs to be doubled.

    His speeds will be doubled with that budget, though.

    Thanked by 1Not_Oles
  • JoshRJoshR Member, Patron Provider

    @dsh said:
    I'm looking for a 1tb ssd only storage server. No ssd cached servers.
    2 core 2gb is enough.

    USA west or midwest. Budget 10$/m

    Did you find a server?
    I can help you out. Give me a PM and will get you squared away!

  • Not_OlesNot_Oles Member, Patron Provider

    @danblaze said: I'm sure there's something purist here, basically a bare metal passthrough exclusive 1TB NVME.

    https://crunchbits.com/vds/nvme

    Thanks! I don't think I knew or maybe I didn't remember that crunchbits offered this!

  • Not_OlesNot_Oles Member, Patron Provider

    @satorik said:
    @Not_Oles I'm not sure if this is what you said, but you could test the "sync" and "async" mount options yourself to see the performance. By default, partitions are mounted as "async".
    https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/146620/difference-between-sync-and-async-mount-options

    Thanks for your very helpful comment! I was wondering about the system calls for writing, which probably are lower than the mounting context. But I am guessing you are very correct to mention and even to emphasize mounting. Thanks again! :)

  • RadiRadi Host Rep, Veteran

    Intel® Atom™ C2750 (8-Core, 2.4GHz)
    RAM: 16 GB DDR3
    Disk: 1 x 1 TB SSD
    Bandwidth: 100 Mbps
    1 IPv4
    NO-IPMI, you are limited to the OS, which are available on order form
    Location: Dallas
    Price: $20/mo OR $200/year
    Order link: https://portal.drserver.net/?cmd=cart&action=add&id=222

    If you double your budget, I can offer this dedicated server.

  • vovlervovler Member

    OP probably meant not wanting SSD cached HDD servers.
    Cause filesystem cache is automatic, and the SSD itself has cache

  • dshdsh Member

    Thank you guys. Somehow it turned into filesystem caching. Little background. I'm having a problem with so called ssd cached storage vps. It's worse than dedicated HDD in my case.

  • vovlervovler Member
    edited June 2024

    @dsh said:
    Thank you guys. Somehow it turned into filesystem caching. Little background. I'm having a problem with so called ssd cached storage vps. It's worse than dedicated HDD in my case.

    That's HDD storage with SSD cache. However, it's not easy to find a VPS with 1TB SSD with 2 cores. That's an unproportionate amount of SSD storage for 2 cores, better go with a cheapo dedi like Radi suggested up above

    OR

    With a dedi with an HDD all to yourself

    https://oneprovider.com/configure/dediconf/2833 for $8 a month. although I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy to use an Atom CPU. Also its in France :|

  • vovlervovler Member

    Also you can refer to this thread, seems to have one offer that may interest you
    https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/192630/looking-for-a-vps-with-1tb-of-storage

Sign In or Register to comment.