SSD in Standalone, non RAID Server



  • We have our standalone SQL server with a single drive, no RAID setup. It is always running low in space. Was considering cloning/imaging it to a larger drive and wonder if SSD would be a good option or is tried and true spinning hard drives still more reliable?

    Thanks...



  • HDs have not been more reliable for many years. SSDs are generally way more reliable (when talking enterprise, server drives.) Sometimes by an order of magnitude.



  • Out of curiosity why isn't the SQL workload being virtualized? Then this becomes a moot point.

    From my understanding SSDs are just as reliable as spinning platters.



  • Nothing is worse than a single drive, no RAID (except RAID 0 or a span of individual, non-RAID HDs.) Many people use SSDs without RAID (foolish) but never HDs without RAID. An SSD is expected to last a decade or two without any failure. A hard drive is expected to fail every 5-8 years and hit a URE every few times reading through the drive. That means you are risking a complete database corruption on a regular basis. Single drives have no URE protection like RAID does.



  • @coliver said:

    Out of curiosity why isn't the SQL workload being virtualized? Then this becomes a moot point.

    This too. Two things that should be foregone conclusions for any server today: RAID and virtualization. If data is worth storing, it should be on RAID. If a server is worth having, it should be virtualized.



  • @coliver It crossed my mind to virtualize...but we can't simply move that license we have to a virtual correct (for the Physical Server 2008 R2)? We already spent money on a Microsoft Audit to get compliant on some other things and would hate to ask for more money to virtualize it.



  • @garak0410 said:

    @coliver It crossed my mind to virtualize...but we can't simply move that license we have to a virtual correct (for the Physical Server 2008 R2)?

    Yes of course. There is no "physical" license of Windows Server.



  • @garak0410 said:

    We already spent money on a Microsoft Audit to get compliant on some other things and would hate to ask for more money to virtualize it.

    Server virtualization is always free. Both the virtualization portion is free and no vendor of OSes charges for virtualization. And any licensing based on cores, CPUs or other physical factors changes. So it is free in all cases.

    The only outstanding licensing issue with virtualization is Microsoft desktop licenses where they have that unique VDI punishment that no other vendor has.



  • @garak0410 said:

    @coliver It crossed my mind to virtualize...but we can't simply move that license we have to a virtual correct (for the Physical Server 2008 R2)? We already spent money on a Microsoft Audit to get compliant on some other things and would hate to ask for more money to virtualize it.

    Yep, you can easily move that server to your virtual infrastructure. From my understanding it really doesn't care where it is running as long as you have the documentation to back it up.

    Although I'm not sure if this is true with an OEM license maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify.



  • @coliver said:

    @garak0410 said:

    @coliver It crossed my mind to virtualize...but we can't simply move that license we have to a virtual correct (for the Physical Server 2008 R2)? We already spent money on a Microsoft Audit to get compliant on some other things and would hate to ask for more money to virtualize it.

    Yep, you can easily move that server to your virtual infrastructure. From my understanding it really doesn't care where it is running as long as you have the documentation to back it up.

    Although I'm not sure if this is true with an OEM license maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify.

    I will look into this then...would love to get it on our Hyper-V infrustrcture...it has been a godsend...



  • @coliver said:

    Although I'm not sure if this is true with an OEM license maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify.

    Even OEM can be virtualized. OEM restrictions still apply (must be virtualized on the same piece of hardware on which it was physically licensed.)

    But a general rule of thumb.... never buy OEM licenses for servers. You have no licensing for restoring or failover. It's a pretty useless license in a disaster recovery scenario.



  • @garak0410 said:

    I will look into this then...would love to get it on our Hyper-V infrustrcture...it has been a godsend...

    Yup, just install the HyperV role and you are virtualized. But you REALLY need to deal with that single disk problem! That is huge.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @coliver said:

    Although I'm not sure if this is true with an OEM license maybe @scottalanmiller can clarify.

    Even OEM can be virtualized. OEM restrictions still apply (must be virtualized on the same piece of hardware on which it was physically licensed.)

    But a general rule of thumb.... never buy OEM licenses for servers. You have no licensing for restoring or failover. It's a pretty useless license in a disaster recovery scenario.

    Well... then that makes it pretty much useless, thanks for that info I wasn't sure if that was the case or not.



  • @coliver said:

    Well... then that makes it pretty much useless, thanks for that info I wasn't sure if that was the case or not.

    Sort of. Virtualization is still a "no question" move. Being physical should never happen. It is just that virtualization does not remove the OEM restrictions that already made the license nearly useless. It's the license that is a bad idea, but virtualization is still the only good way to run any server.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @garak0410 said:

    I will look into this then...would love to get it on our Hyper-V infrustrcture...it has been a godsend...

    Yup, just install the HyperV role and you are virtualized. But you REALLY need to deal with that single disk problem! That is huge.

    Question so I understand what you said...I want to move my 2008 R2 license over to my Hyper-V host, then I don't need to worry about that single disk anymore as I'll then retire that server. Were you talking about turning in my 2008 Box into a host and then work on adding a second drive?



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    HDs have not been more reliable for many years. SSDs are generally way more reliable (when talking enterprise, server drives.) Sometimes by an order of magnitude.

    For shame @scottalanmiller ! HDD != HD



  • SSDs are far more reliable, and have been for some time now.



  • @garak0410 said:

    Were you talking about turning in my 2008 Box into a host and then work on adding a second drive?

    This is your only option. Your OEM license locks that system to that old host. There is no option to ever move it. That is the limitation agreed to when OEM is purchased. That's what you trade for the discount. It's never worth it. But it is what it is. You are stuck. You can make this piece of hardware part of your HyperV infrastructure but you can't move this VM to another server.



  • @thanksaj said:

    For shame @scottalanmiller ! HDD != HD

    HD = hard drive. That's what I'm talking about as opposed to SSDs. Hard drive has been a standard term for Winchester drives since long before you were born. It is the alternative to a FD, floppy drive. You can add the "disk" to either of them or not. They are the same thing. Not sure what you are picturing as the difference, but they are actually the same thing (HD and HDD.) HDD is a new term just made up recently and should not be needed as it is redundant. Really, they are all Winchesters and that is the correct term.



  • @garak0410 said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @garak0410 said:

    I will look into this then...would love to get it on our Hyper-V infrustrcture...it has been a godsend...

    Yup, just install the HyperV role and you are virtualized. But you REALLY need to deal with that single disk problem! That is huge.

    Question so I understand what you said...I want to move my 2008 R2 license over to my Hyper-V host, then I don't need to worry about that single disk anymore as I'll then retire that server. Were you talking about turning in my 2008 Box into a host and then work on adding a second drive?

    The answer depends on exactly what license you have. If it is an OEM Server 2008 R2 license, then you need to virtualize it on the existing box. It cannot be moved.
    If it is a volume license or a retail key, then you can move it to your existing infrastructure, no questions asked.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @thanksaj said:

    For shame @scottalanmiller ! HDD != HD

    HD = hard drive. That's what I'm talking about as opposed to SSDs.

    HD = High Definition. HDD = hard drive, or hard disk drive more correctly. Come on Scott!



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    This is your only option. Your OEM license locks that system to that old host.

    I do not believe that he stated the license was OEM.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    The answer depends on exactly what license you have. If it is an OEM Server 2008 R2 license, then you need to virtualize it on the existing box. It cannot be moved.

    Oh, maybe he didn't.



  • @thanksaj said:

    HD = High Definition. HDD = hard drive, or hard disk drive more correctly. Come on Scott!

    HDD = Hard Disk Drive
    HD = Hard Drive
    SSD = Solid State Drive



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    This is your only option. Your OEM license locks that system to that old host.

    I do not believe that he stated the license was OEM.

    Sorry for the confusion... that was my fault. I brought up the OEM license out of curiosity more then anything else. I don't know if he has the retail or OEM license.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    @thanksaj said:

    HD = High Definition. HDD = hard drive, or hard disk drive more correctly. Come on Scott!

    HDD = Hard Disk Drive
    HD = Hard Drive
    SSD = Solid State Drive

    I'm not gonna argue it any further at this point. Not worth it.



  • @thanksaj said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @thanksaj said:

    For shame @scottalanmiller ! HDD != HD

    HD = hard drive. That's what I'm talking about as opposed to SSDs.

    HD = High Definition. HDD = hard drive, or hard disk drive more correctly. Come on Scott!

    I think it has more to do with context then the actual abbreviations.



  • @JaredBusch said:

    HDD = Hard Disk Drive
    HD = Hard Drive
    SSD = Solid State Drive

    Indeed that is what the acronyms stand for. HD and HDD are the same physical thing, though. There is no need to state the "disk" and HDD should really never be used as it is just a silly, new term that is redundant.



  • @thanksaj said:

    I'm not gonna argue it any further at this point. Not worth it.

    It's important that you understand that HDD is not a useful term. Just because someone was recently confused and made a new term for something that has had a term and an acronym (HD) for 30 years doesn't mean that the new term has a useful place in the industry. HD already covers that base, HDD is just confusing. HDD is not really an industry term. No idea where it came from or why, but it is very recent that anyone has used it and it is just used out of confusion.

    HD meant hard drive 20+ years before anyone used it for high definition.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    You have no licensing for restoring or failover. It's a pretty useless license in a disaster recovery scenario.

    You could simply buy a new OEM licence in the case of a disaster. I don't believe Microsoft would have an issue with this as long as the licence was ordered in a timely manner, but what do I know.

    With standard licences (without SA) are you allowed to test your DR plan by temporarily restoring to a separate server? And if so, why can't you do the same with OEM?


Log in to reply