# VPS with a single SSD as storage



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

In an effort to offer lower priced plans we are considering launching a node that offers a single ssd as storage. This will only be one plan and it will be explicitly stated that this plan is not protected from single disk failure but still has the weekly backups. I just want to collect some input on this idea. Would there be any interest in such an offer?


----------



## MartinD (Aug 14, 2013)

Do you mean 1 single SSD drive for the whole node or single SSD drives for each VPS?


----------



## Reece-DM (Aug 14, 2013)

MartinD said:


> Do you mean 1 single SSD drive for the whole node or single SSD drives for each VPS?


That's what I'm wondering.

I could imagine a single disk for the whole node would cause problems with high usage.

A SSD drive per VPS, I can't see anything inexpensive about that either.

Please elaborate a bit more?


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

The node would have multiple high capacity SSD's configured simply as single drives. VPS storage containers will be stored on those drives, it is as simple as that.


----------



## drmike (Aug 14, 2013)

Interesting.  Need to better outline the plan though.

I take it you are going to run a RAID or some redundant idea for the actual server boot, main OS, etc.?

Then the user / customer files, those go on chunks on individual non-RAID SSD storage (i.e. you have 4+ SSD drives that are separate storage chunks in non RAID).   Roughly what you are considering?

Others will tell you not to   This is how I run some servers/workstations.  Haven't had any problems in years of doing this.

SSD failure rates are something I'd worry about and keep spares stocked at the datacenter.  I'd also pack spinning disks on the node for backups on the node just in case as well as external backups.

I don't see any problem with it, but I am weird like that


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

buffalooed said:


> Interesting.  Need to better outline the plan though.
> 
> I take it you are going to run a RAID or some redundant idea for the actual server boot, main OS, etc.?
> 
> ...


That is exactly the idea. The main os will be on raid 1. There will be spare ssds at the datacenter in case of failure. We keep a spare of everything at the DC (Even a rackmountable power strip just in case. We are considering daily + weekly backups also. The customer would have a 512MB 5 GB SSD plan for less than $3/month.


----------



## Damian (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't see the advantage to this that spending $300 for a non-caching RAID 50/60 controller wouldn't offer redundant benefits on. I'd rather spend the $300 for the RAID controller and not have to do PR cleanup when an SSD dies and client data is lost and the client complains on a public venue.

Is my small mind missing something bright there?


----------



## drmike (Aug 14, 2013)

Damian said:


> I don't see the advantage to this that spending $300 for a non-caching RAID 50/60 controller wouldn't offer redundant benefits on. Is my small mind missing something bright there?


Unsure how the OP buys servers and the availability of drive bays and controller upgrades.  That said,  I've done this sort of thing on 1U units with officially 2 drive slots only and crammed for space internals.  The board - server board - in these cases has built in RAID support and upwards of 6 drive channels.   Meaning 2 spinning drives in the bays and then 2-4 SSDs "embedded" in the server.

I am no fan of RAID headaches and like to isolate files normally on different media.  So it's a logical extension of years of habit on my end.

I think it's certainly doable, I do it and have done it.  Providers will frown like I've said 

Why to do this?  Lower costs, making do with more (i.e. 1U servers), isolating certain work loads....  Those are main reasons I see.


----------



## sleddog (Aug 14, 2013)

Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

I make my own backups, so I can restore if need be.

But any reputable host today needs to provide some level of raid to avoid single-disk failure being immediately catastrophic.


----------



## Slownode (Aug 14, 2013)

I wonder how well RAID5 would work with SSD... it's awful with HDD.


Could have a ton of triples, then you'd get capacity and reasonable protection.


Or... you RAID0 SSDs and have HDD storage, 2 virtual drives, one stupid fast, one purely for backups.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

Damian said:


> I don't see the advantage to this that spending $300 for a non-caching RAID 50/60 controller wouldn't offer redundant benefits on. I'd rather spend the $300 for the RAID controller and not have to do PR cleanup when an SSD dies and client data is lost and the client complains on a public venue.
> 
> Is my small mind missing something bright there?


The controller plus the 2 ssds worth of storage for parity that will be at least $1200. This is for those who want the best deal. Even with raid it is possible (However unlikely) that all the data will be lost. The controller could malfunction and corrupt the raid volume.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

Slownode said:


> I wonder how well RAID5 would work with SSD... it's awful with HDD. Could have a ton of triples, then you'd get capacity and reasonable protection. Or... you RAID0 SSDs and have HDD storage, 2 virtual drives, one stupid fast, one purely for backups.


Enterprise grade SSD's are great for for RAID5. Consumer grade ssds not so much in my experience.


----------



## sleddog (Aug 14, 2013)

Well I'm confused. Will my VPS be RAIDed or not? The topic of your post says "single SSD" but now you're talking about RAID5...


----------



## Slownode (Aug 14, 2013)

fapvps said:


> Enterprise grade SSD's are great for for RAID5. Consumer grade ssds not so much in my experience.


 Oh well; running loose individual SSDs would be just fine as long as there's local backup storage.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

sleddog said:


> Well I'm confused. Will my VPS be RAIDed or not? The topic of your post says "single SSD" but now you're talking about RAID5...


The RAID5 was offtopic. The whole point of the thread is to figure out if it makes sense to offer an SSD plan without any RAID for Cheaper.


----------



## clarity (Aug 14, 2013)

It seems like it would be a lot more work for you. I am sure that you could spell it out, and customers are still going to want the performance of the other products. It doesn't seem like it would be that good of an idea. I know that I would never purchase it.


----------



## sleddog (Aug 14, 2013)

OK, thanks.

Then I think it your success depends on how you plan to market it. RAID is a standard, even with most lowend hosts. So if you offer something without RAID then you need to clearly state: "warning: your VPS could go POOF! at any moment, and you will need to rebuild from your backups."


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

dclardy said:


> It seems like it would be a lot more work for you. I am sure that you could spell it out, and customers are still going to want the performance of the other products. It doesn't seem like it would be that good of an idea. I know that I would never purchase it.


It is about choice. You can buy the Single Core SSD Plan for $5.99 ($4.19 after promo code) or if you wish you can buy the same plan without RAID for $3.99 ($2.79). It is as simple as that.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

sleddog said:


> OK, thanks.
> 
> Then I think it your success depends on how you plan to market it. RAID is a standard, even with most lowend hosts. So if you offer something without RAID then you need to clearly state: "warning: your VPS could go POOF! at any moment, and you will need to rebuild from your backups."


It will be very clearly stated in the product description.


----------



## sleddog (Aug 14, 2013)

fapvps said:


> It will be very clearly stated in the product description.


Fine. That allows consumers to decide. Don't forget the POOF! bit


----------



## drmike (Aug 14, 2013)

Well, I am probably the resident RAID hater   Some big failures of large arrays in many years past.  I get RAID, but it's headache on its own and hard to failure simulate/train.

Too many hosts just have RAID because everyone else does (keeping up with Jones effect).   RAID isn't the solution to all hosting ills. 

Probably every VPS hosts I've dealt with (probably north of 100 now) claimed to have RAID. Seeing dd tests that show very slow ala USB connected type storage speeds too often tells me most folks have no know-how about the RAID, optimization, best RAID type, drive selection, etc.  Slow disk IO is rather commonplace in this industry, except where large drive arrays and or SSD caching and or pure SSD.

I frankly, do not care about RAID with SSD.  SSD is by design highly RAID-like.  Drive failures, yes they happen.  Backups are the solution, not RAID.

Will I be irked when a VPS gets blown away due to bad drive, sure.  I get irked any time I have to re-do work, configs, etc.  Will RAID reduce that likelihood?  It should.  In reality?   Not always true.

Pure SSD is peppy.

Now if a provider could couple pure SSD with a drive that supported built in crypto speed enhancements (AES maybe?) then some new ideas come to mind.   Not viable with small storage chunks like 5GB though.


----------



## sleddog (Aug 14, 2013)

Yes RAID can fail. But more often it provides a fallback. When a single drive fails, there's no fallback, nada, nothing, zip. RAID isn't a 100% solution but it's a damn site better than a single drive for catastophic failures.

For some buyers this offer might be attractive, for others, not. It depends on the need. But it's important to manage the expectation.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

sleddog said:


> Fine. That allows consumers to decide. Don't forget the POOF! bit


I'll try to squeeze in the POOF! somewhere but no garantees. The POOF! is also possible with RAID. It all depends on the quality of the setup as well as some luck I guess. Even the best RAID setups fail with multple HBA's. Firmware issues can cause massive issues. Silent data corruption is another weak point of RAID that you don't see in single drive setups. RAID is NEVER a replacement for proper up to date backups. Too bad most customers see it as a form of backup for some reason.


----------



## Slownode (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't trust any RAID other than 1, the bigger the array, the more likely a failure.


Even RAID1 can be a pain, my software simply uses 2 drives in parallel, completely parallel like a boss or just snapshotting. Rolling check for difference, copy &amp; rename over, no overwrite... never directly overwrite unless you have hash checks.


Just advertise: RAID0 SSD + RAID1 HDD storage.


If someone crys about losing data on SSD... welp it's called RAID0 for a reason.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

Slownode said:


> I don't trust any RAID other than 1, the bigger the array, the more likely a failure.
> 
> 
> Even RAID1 can be a pain, my software simply uses 2 drives in parallel, completely parallel like a boss or just snapshotting. Rolling check for difference, copy &amp; rename over, no overwrite... never directly overwrite unless you have hash checks.
> ...


RAID0 is another interesting option with access to raid 1.


----------



## Francisco (Aug 14, 2013)

fapvps said:


> RAID0 is another interesting option with access to raid 1.


Uh...

RAID 0 is *much much much* worse than a JBOD through LVM.

With the LVM you'll be able to recoup most of your data during a failure, where as a drive completely failing in an 0 = you're boned.

Francisco


----------



## drmike (Aug 14, 2013)

RAID0 I use with small machines limited to 2 drive channels.... Good for workstations to increase disk IO and nothing more.

That said,  replaced that concept mostly with a SSD instead.


----------



## Slownode (Aug 14, 2013)

&amp;nbsp;



Francisco said:


> Uh...
> 
> 
> RAID 0 is *much much much* worse than a JBOD through LVM.
> ...


Actually I was thinking of just lying about it altogether. Say RAID0 but it's actually loose drives, or JBOD... I don't get the point of JBOD, it's slower than running drives separately, unless parallel R/W is now supported.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

I run RAID 0 on my main workstation with 6 15k RPM SAS drives and no cache. It is only on the OS disk and backed up weekly so I never lost anything.





Francisco said:


> Uh...
> 
> RAID 0 is *much much much* worse than a JBOD through LVM.
> 
> ...


It is just a thought. Not going into production with RAID 0.


----------



## texteditor (Aug 14, 2013)

fapvps said:


> I run RAID 0 on my main workstation with 6 15k RPM SAS drives and no cache. It is only on the OS disk and backed up weekly so I never lost anything.


Holy hell, just buy a SSD, it will pay for itself in like 2 months of power bills.


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

texteditor said:


> Holy hell, just buy a SSD, it will pay for itself in like 2 months of power bills.


What's the fun in that?


----------



## Slownode (Aug 14, 2013)

fapvps said:


> What's the fun in that?


Running a 0+1+1, or 0+6or10?

I used to have a 0 on my computer and 1 pairs, now I have an SSD and 3 1 pairs...


----------



## fapvps (Aug 14, 2013)

Slownode said:


> Running a 0+1+1, or 0+6or10?
> 
> 
> I used to have a 0 on my computer and 1 pairs, now I have an SSD and 3 1 pairs...




Plus another 1 TB on the motherboard controller.


----------

