MS Researchers Call Moving Server Storage To SSDs a Bad Idea

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)."

Comments

How about a policy: NO PAYWALLS!

[nweaver]

This is an ACM article behind a paywall.

How about a slashdot policy of not linking to articles behind paywalls?

Paid ACM subscription

[eples]

Their price needs to decrease by 3-3000 times for them to make sense.

Hm. I was thinking the same thing about the ACM subscription.

they already cost less per gig than some SAS drive

[hxnwix]

SSD is already cheaper per gig than some SAS drives. Also, 3-3000 times? What the hell sort of estimate is that?

Re:they already cost less per gig than some SAS dr

[Larry Clotter]

It's called "pulling numbers out of your ass".

Re:Not every tool is right for every application?!

[AvitarX]

I actually don't think times cheaper makes any sense.

I hear it all the time, but it is meaningless.

3000 times cheaper than what? The current price?

If I am selling something that is now "twice as cheap" is that half the price?, double the discount?, twice as shoddily made?