Hey Guys
Does anyone know what is the difference between SSD and HDD seedboxes. What are the goods and bads of each one
Thanks
Printable View
Hey Guys
Does anyone know what is the difference between SSD and HDD seedboxes. What are the goods and bads of each one
Thanks
SSD transfer speed it about 8 time faster then HDD (as per intel). Disk speed become useful as home PC for OS load time & application launch time, surely it will be much lesser for SSD as compare to HDD.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOWKratos
For seedboxes - HDD speed varies from 80-160 MB/s. Let take example with 80 MB/s speed HDD.
Suppose you have shared seedbox with HDD speed 80 MB/s (which is 640 mbps) with 4 user/disk & network speed 1 Gbps. Though your network can transfer upto 1 Gbps but you won't get upload/ download (in total) speed beyond 640 mbps. Further it will get less if all other 3 user on same disk is active.
SSD rdp/ box are good for encoders as their task complete much faster & they get max speed on release.
Hope you get it but if any point is unclear, feel free to ask. :)
SO you are saying with SSD BOX u get much faster speed then HDDQuote:
Originally Posted by DGM
Yes. But seed speed also depend upon number of peers & SSD box are quite expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOWKratos
Yeah i have seen it 60 US for 500gig lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DGM
Thanks a lot DGM
The main benefits of SSD Seedbox
The main benefits are the sheer insane IOPS capability of SSD seedbox, since there is no seeking involved, and hence lower latency of the storage medium. Those 253 peers mentioned above are mostly requesting different chunks, quickly necessitating a huge random access speed (assuming data is not cached – usually is not). 1Gbps is roughly 110MiB/s, which is nothing to an SSD, but due to limited cache you might wind up needing 220MiB/s or more worth of read speed to exhaust that 1Gbps – JUST 1Gbps. This all is random access too, where as a single 7200RPM drive with all the optimizations, caching etc. is limited to roughly 150IOPS (which btw is more than the theoretical physical limitation, but is possible due to optimization algorithms and on drive caching etc.).
Usually seedboxes wind up having 500-1000KiB request sizes per I/O, this means at 220MiB/s you are doing 225 to 450 IOPS to maintain this speed. 220MiB/s and 450 IOPS is a breeze for an SSD. You would need at least 3 HDDs to get that speed in stable manner (500KiB request size). Those 253 peers are likely to require at the very minimum 1 IOPS each, quite frequently even more.
This is not accounting for all the other activity on a server, you might have hash checks going on, compressing an archive, GUI activity, FTP/SFTP transfers etc etc. going on, which all adds up.
Even at worst case scenario where your peers are slow necessitating that 1265 peers or more to get 1Gbps exhausted, SSDs are not going to bottleneck, you can continue doing everything else on the server without as much as a delay due to the storage. Those 1265 peers would most likely require 1265 IOPS or more, which would require 9 HDDs or more to sustain.
This is just on a single user, single rTorrent instance, highly optimized use scenario. Multi-user shared seedboxes will not achieve the same speeds as single user, single instance usage due to sheer data amount – there’s just too much of activity, writing to the drives, multiple times the active data amount etc. It’s quite complicated subject.
What SSD achieves is that it removes one potential bottleneck completely in almost every case, and makes using the server much more pleasant by not having storage I/O caused delays in applications and GUI.
This all means that we can have many many many times the upload slots and connected peers, and data can be served to a really high count of torrents and to a really high count of peers at the same time, ultimately achieving much higher total throughput – but only when there is sufficient demand for data.
Essentially, SSD seedboxes solves a subset of performance requirements completely, but does not magically mean super fast torrent speeds.
Source - pulsedmedia blog.
@Ronin21 This is Mad confusing lol
but i will try to decipher it
Thanks
IMO SSD is a "must have" on your Desktop to install the OS on this disk.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOWKratos
But i don't think seedboxes with SSD really worth the extra money. Just keep in mind that most of the seedbox companies don't even have enough upload speed to take full advantage of the SSD's speed!
And something else... If a seedbox is good enough with an HDD to buffer your trackers why to use SSD instead? A seedbox with SSD will have way less available GB for the same price!
Just my two cents...
Completely agree the TheTrader here. Most people use a SSD to store their OS and program files etc, while media is kept on an HDD. So why not keep your seedbox media on an HDD too? Little point paying extra for the speed that will rarely be utilised.
You're always going to be limited by the weakest point in the chain. Unless you have setup such as: 1gbit -> SSD Seedbbox -> 1gbit -> SSD Desktop, you've going to be limited elsewhere. It may come in handy if you plan on extracting files a lot, but I certainly wouldn't say it's a "must have".
I think it'll be 10 years before an SSD is relevant server side unless it has a beast CPU and you are using applications to encode video etc or on trackers with 1000's of peers across 1000's of torrents. Even a 20/20 HDD server can provide speeds way, way faster than most people need, especially with a basic Linux OS, and as far as seedboxes with no VNC access go, there is no point at all imo. Save the money or get more disk space. I doubt even traffic intensive dedicated servers like the ones Facebook and Google use have SSD's yet (but I could be wrong about that?). There will be a time when the far greater energy efficiency of an SSD over a regular HDD make it a mouthwatering money-saving option for data centers but I cant see it being fully implemented for a long time because of the cost of replacing entire infrastructres and server pools.
Interesting subject though. And double check everything I say because I havent lol.
Noone mentioned random disk io yet. That's the worst part of everything. For seeding something fast you often need to have fast RANDOM disk reads and writes which are way slower than continueous disk reads, that's why I believe that SSD seedboxes can provide way faster speeds. So I will say if my monthly bandwitch usage with a HDD seedbox is 10TB then with an SSD one having the same price it can easily be 30-40TB. However that requires way more budget to get the same amount of storage. So that's why I haven't used any SSD seedboxes yet, but I am planning to try out one, because it looks like I will get a good deal very soon :) If that deal will work, then I will be able to tell you more detailled comparation about the HDD and SSD seedboxes.
i have an ssd box and a regular hdd box .. the ssd is obviously much faster
great for catching the swarms
SSD is the future, go with it
could you tell which ssd you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by snakebite
Interesting all the comments, I also think that hdd is enough, ssd is very expensive xD