[AccessD] SSD - Anything to it?

Rocky,

I am actually placing my SQL Server database files on the SSD.  The "FE" in my case is C# code or 
even queries that SQL Server is running directly.

As for trying to do an Access BE sitting on a SSD, no, I would think it would work just like any 
other BE except that the file server could get at the pieces of the file much faster.

As I mentioned, you will not get a 100X increasde in speed, not even close, however you should see 
significant speed increases in most cases, even with an Access BE.

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

On 10/12/2010 12:23 PM, Rocky Smolin wrote:
> Oh I understand about the increase in transfer rate and the decrease in
> response time with the SSD.  But to achieve the gains when executing say a
> query, the front and back ends would both have to be on an SSD I would
> think.
>
> R
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:41 AM
> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SSD - Anything to it?
>
> Rocky,
>
>   >Seems to me that response time is largely data transfer to and from the
> disk - so in that case you wouldn't see any difference. A query that takes
> 20 seconds would still take twenty seconds, no?
>
> It is way more than that.
>
> The point of an SSD is:
>
> 1) They can transfer data faster, i.e. they can read blocks of data and
> transfer those blocks at electronic speeds.
> 2) They can access a specific sector faster.  With rotating media, you have
> to position the head (9 milliseconds or so) and then wait for the disk to
> rotate the desired data under the head (~1-2 ms depending on rotation
> speed).  Only then can the data actually stream off the disk.  This is known
> as "Access time" with rotating media.
> 3) The data streaming out of the read head is limited to the speed of the
> data coming off the rotating disk.  With modern disks with vertical
> recording (on the magnetic media) this is quite high.  The old linear
> encoding is not very high.  In any case the data tends to stream off the
> current fastest disk about 60 to 100 megabytes / second (once found - see 2
> above)
>
> So, what you have is a situation where, with rotating media, you cannot get
> more than 100-200 "IOPS"
> (I/O operations / second).  IOW the head cannot move back and forth between
> tracks more than 100-200 times per second MAXIMUM.  If it is trying to do
> that from inner track to outer track, it will be even less than that.
>
> All of that stuff goes away with SSDs.  There is no head, so the "Access
> time" drops to a fixed value, the same all of the time.  It averages
> somewhere around .1 millisecond to "access the data"
> or get the data started streaming off the disk to the computer.  That is .1
> millisecond vs 8-12 milliseconds or about 100 times faster, just to access
> the data.
>
> The data reading out of the memory chips is also faster, and can be as high
> as 200-250 megabytes streaming reads.
>
> Between the two factors, SSDs can routinely perform anywhere from 2000 to
> 50,000 IOPS.  IOW they can access 10,000 (pulled out of thin air from
> somewhere between these two figures) DIFFERENT sets of data in a second vs
> 100-200 for rotating media.
>
> This does NOT translate to 100-1000 times faster queries (or anything else),
> because you will hit a bottleneck somewhere else in the system.  What it
> means is that the disks will no longer be slowing down the loading of the
> query data into memory, i.e. the computer will not be waiting for the disks
> any more.
>
> This seems to be pretty true.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
> On 10/12/2010 9:34 AM, Rocky Smolin wrote:
>> Do you use it as Kingston was saying - put the OS and apps on it?  Do
>> you notice any improvement in response time.  Seems to me that
>> response time is largely data transfer to and from the disk - so in
>> that case you wouldn't see any difference. A query that takes 20
>> seconds would still take twenty seconds, no?
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
>> [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of jwcolby
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:59 AM
>> To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>> Subject: Re: [AccessD] SSD - Anything to it?
>>
>> Rocky,
>>
>> I cannot discuss any specific brand other than the one I use, but I
>> can say that SSDs in general *rock*, with the right supports.
>>
>> They are not drop in replacements yet - your grandma probably wouldn't
>> wanna.  There are trim issues and firmware update issues but things
>> are getting better.
>>
>> John W. Colby
>> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>>
>> On 10/11/2010 6:26 PM, Rocky Smolin wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/kingstonssdnow
>>>
>>> Maybe you could win one:
>>>
>>> http://www.kingston.com/ssd/destructo/default.asp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> AccessD mailing list
>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>