MS Researchers Call Moving Server Storage To SSDs a Bad Idea 292
An anonymous reader writes "As an IT administrator did you ever think of replacing disks by SSDs? Or using SSDs as an intermediate caching layer? A recent paper by Microsoft researchers provides detailed cost/benefit analysis for several real workloads. The conclusion is that, for a range of typical enterprise workloads, using SSDs makes no sense in the short to medium future. Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense. Note that this paper has nothing to do with laptop workloads, for which SSDs probably make more sense (due to SSDs' ruggedness)."
Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:5, Funny)
News at 11!
Re:Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they already cost less per gig than some SAS dr (Score:5, Funny)
What do you mean, an african or european ass?
Re:Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:5, Funny)
3-3000 times? (Score:4, Funny)
seriously? "we don't have enough people here. we need between 2-2000 times as many people in the configuration department." Does that sound like I have ANY idea how many people we need?
Sorry, that is a *ridiculous* range to give.
Re:Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno about that. I'm pretty sure that if your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems start looking like nails . . . allowing the hammer to be "applied" to every application . . .
I think an SSD would make for a very expensive hammer. Still, think about the low latency of such a hammer! Plus with the wear levelling feature, the useful life of and SSD hammer seems like it would be much more reliable over a spinning disc hammer. And the lower power requirements could pay for itself very quickly if you have an entire server room of carpenters. I don't think they did the math right on this one.
What it really means (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft researchers provides detailed cost/benefit analysis for several real workloads.
If Microsoft researchers report that SSD's are not cost effective storage, it means that Microsoft is not getting any revenue from SSD storage. Or that they're behind on incorporating SSD's into the server stack. Or they caught blind-sided by the trend like they did with netbooks and are now scrambling to explain why they didn't see it coming. Oh, we found that wasn't cost effective, so we didn't incorporate it.
I really miss the days Microsoft had it together. There was a time they were great to work with. Now they seem like the Three Stooges Do IT. SSD, eh? Oh, a wise guy! SMACK! Wo-wo-wo-wo!
Re:Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:3, Funny)
$100 - (3 * $100) = -$200
Hell, if they pay me $200 AND give me an SSD, I'll be a happy person.
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they already cost less per gig than some SAS dr (Score:5, Funny)
They could grip it by the husk!
Re:What if... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about a policy: NO PAYWALLS! (Score:4, Funny)
"It's also tax deductible as a professional subscription."
Sweet!! you mean I can send MS $200 to avoid having to send $40 to the government?
Re:Not every tool is right for every application?! (Score:4, Funny)
Funny, my other complaint is twice as slow.
Yeah, I prefer "half fast."
Re:What it really means (Score:1, Funny)
You do realise that Microsoft Research is largely independent from the commercial arm of Microsoft... right. It's actually quite respected.