Craig Wall Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I have a client insisting on hosting my database on an external SSD connected to an iMac via an external USB 2 port. I've tried to tell him that it's a bad idea...that access speeds and latency with USB 2 will seriously hurt server performance! Maybe if I can send him a few other thoughts from other seasoned pros he will listen to me. Am I exaggerating the performance zap or is this a horrible idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Smith Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Update your profile to reveal your Current versions of FileMaker, OS, and Platform. Here is a quick link for you to use. MY PROFILE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 You are correct that this is a bad idea. Why does he want to do this? Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Wall Posted September 26, 2014 Author Share Posted September 26, 2014 Why? I suspect that it's a lack of understanding of the performance hit plus the time he will have to dedicate to install the SSD in the iMac. I would think we are talking about something approximating a two-fold decline in performance. What would you think Steven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Ormond Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 I have tested this in the past on a USB 2 connection. You can expect constant disconnect as the OS tries to turn off the connection if it thinks it's not in use. Also, expect regular database crashes if you run script that require a long time to run and a lot of memory. FM gets hung up waiting for the USB connection. Some days it will be fine, some days it will crash every 10 mins. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Performance degradation is hard to predict. SSD's are good for reading data, not so good for writing it. Also, unless you have a very high quality server class SSD, it will likely wear out very soon in its lifecycle. Steven 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Wall Posted September 26, 2014 Author Share Posted September 26, 2014 The client has invested quite a bit in the solution. I wish they would invest a bit in the hardware. I have now learned that the current machine (only 4 GIG RAM! with the external USB drive) is just temporary. Big relief there. The funny thing is that--through early testing--they are pretty happy with performance. So that's good news. Performance degradation is hard to predict. SSD's are go for reading data, not so good for writing it. Also, unless you have a very high quality server class SSD, it will likely wear out very soon in its lifecycle. Steven SSDs wouldn't likely fail...just get slower? I thought I'd read somebody like the Carlson group having favorable things to say about SSD. Is my memory that bad? I'd sure love to see them with a TB or SATA III RAID. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Wall Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 I wanted to thank all that replied. The client relented and even bought a new Mac to work as the server. For now we are using an SSD. It's not heavily trafficked and I suppose in two years can easily budget for a fresh drive. It's uber-fast right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 3496 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now