Nearly every time we talk about our infrastructure, people ask us why we own and operate our servers rather than host Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange network in the cloud. Usually when people ask us this, they seem to want to convince us that we should be in the cloud. The debate usually then centers around cost.

Cloud vs Self Hosting Cost?

The hypothetical cost of Stack Exchange being in the cloud has come up on meta. It turns out that the cost is difficult to actually figure out. Some of the things you need to take into account are:

  • More or fewer Sysadmins required? (People say with the cloud you need fewer system administrators, never been convinced of this though)
  • Licensing Costs
  • Owned vs Rented Assets
  • How many cloud “servers” or instances you would need vs real hardware
  • Cost differences when you consider high availability

To really get this analysis correct you really have to invest a lot of time into the analysis, and even then it will only be an estimate. We have looked at cloud computing costs and we think it would actually be higher. When it comes down to it though the cost debate misses the point.

We Love Computers

and every aspect about them. We don’t just love programming and our web applications. We get excited learning about computer hardware, operating systems, history, computer games, and new innovations. Loving computers is an essential part of our company culture. Many of us have assembled our own workstations and our CTO even blogs about it in seven articles when he does. Most of us have grown up with computers as part of our identity. We all have a shared nostalgia of our first computers — if we haven’t taken our pilgrimage to the The Computer History Museum yet then we dream about it. We like to think about about the past, present, and future of computing. Owning and operating our own servers is part of how we get to live out our love of computers.

This culture means when we hire technical staff, we hire people who share this passion. I believe that this passion translates into a better product. Whenever someone does a cost analysis of cloud vs self hosting there is no row in the spreadsheet for “Work Productivity Increase due to Passion.” We are performance and control freaks and love to tweak everything including our hardware. If we outsourced our hosting to cloud computing, we would be outsourcing part of our passion. If you just want to use someone else’s computers, it means you don’t love computers — at least not every aspect to them. Sometimes cloud computing may be the best fit (for example if you have 20x the traffic around the holidays or tax season), but if you truly love computing, giving up control of computers to someone else will hurt.

We don’t just like computers, we love them. We have an emotional connection to them, and suggesting that we let someone else own, manage, and tweak them is like suggesting we get rid of what we love — just the thought of it offends.

At Stack Exchange our use case for virtualization is growing. We are not going to run our core QA web servers and database servers using virtualization for performance reasons, but we do host things such as our monitoring system, blogs, domain controllers, and VPN servers.

Our collection of assorted services continues to grow, and with it so does our need to expand our virtualization setup. Currently in our main data center we have 3 VMWare ESX servers. But as we expand, how are we going to handle this growth?

Why Use Virtualization?

Virtualization at its heart is an abstraction layer between the hardware and the operating system. I have always had mixed feelings about this because operating systems, in theory, are supposed to provide all the hardware abstraction and inter service protection you need. However, system administrators have to live in the real world, and this just isn’t the case.

This layer of abstraction, as any abstraction, has performance implications. This in short is why we are not using it for our core QA service. The advantages of this abstraction layer however are tantalizing:

  • Live migration (vMotion in VMWare terms)
  • Running multiple operating systems (i.e. Windows and Linux) on the same hardware
  • Easier to get full utilization of hardware resources by moving VMs around

These advantages and others exist because of this abstraction layer. From a pure systems perspective, the allure of virtualization is to deliver us from many of the hardware constraints when we design systems and go about our day to day tasks. Operating systems become modular to the hardware, and with modularity comes flexibility and agility. Flexibility and agility come from the lifting of constraints and are perhaps some of the most desirable qualities in a system. However, does virtualization deliver on this promise of flexibility?

The Joy of Commodity Hardware

As Wikipedia defines it:

Commodity computing (or Commodity cluster computing) is to use large numbers of already available computing components for parallel computing … commodity computing done with commodity computers as opposed to high-cost supermicrocomputers or boutique computers.”

Today the commodity computer is your standard x64 computer with some varation of one or a couple cores, SAS or SATA spinning disks or SSDs, and some memory. You can debate where to draw the line in this, for instance some might call servers from Dell “specialized” servers where as boxes built from parts at Newegg are not. However, I consider all this commodity hardware because they are essentially variations on the same design — basically better versions of your home computer. The opposite of this is specialized hardware. With specialized hardware, there are major differences between vendors and they generally their own OS or a specialized variant of an operating system.

So what is the joy of commodity hardware? In my mind it is that it delivers on some of the same ideals that we want virtualization — modularity and flexibility. When you design for commodity hardware your servers are essentially interchangeable parts. They can be reused for other things and easily upgraded or replaced with newer versions as computing evolves. It also generally scales in a linear fashion, when you need more power, you just add more boxes.

Specialized hardware on the other hand has the advantage of being more well suited and optimized for its particular task. With this optimization though comes with the cost of lost modularity. Probably the most common example of specialized hardware in many data centers are SANs. They are the ultimate performers when it comes to storage, but you are likely not going to easily swap out your SAN and it can become a central constraint you design around.

Virtualization and Centralized Storage are Best Friends

With VMWare and many forms of virtualization, many of the features are designed to expect shared storage which generally comes in the form of a SAN. This relationship can be seen on the business side of things as well — EMC, one of the largest players in storage, is also the primary holder of VMWare.

Because the traditional virtualization infrastructure is designed around shared storage, the flexibility provided by virtualization comes in conflict with the flexibility of commodity hardware. That doesn’t mean shared storage can’t provide its own form of flexibility, but in my mind, these two are at odds with the traditional virtualization architecture. One of my main concerns is that over time the specialized hardware will weigh us down.

Virtualized Clusters to the Rescue?

If we can have the best of both worlds, it seems to me that it is going to come in the form of a virtual cluster. I first learned about these from a short presentation I saw by Tom Limoncelli about Ganeti. Ganeti is a console for managing virtual clusters built on top of Xen or KVM that is used at Google for some of their internal systems. The idea essentially is that you have a rack of commodity machines with many VMs per machine and still have the ability to do live migration. Using DRDB (think raid 1 across multiple machines) allows for features like live migration without shared storage.

VMWare also offers an appliance called the VMWare vSphere Storage Appliance (VSA) which seems like it might also deliver some of the features you normally only get with a SAN without the SAN — but this doesn’t seem to be the traditional VMWare design.

Virtualized clusters seem like they will give us a lot of the flexibility we want from virtualization while also allowing us to stick with commodity hardware. Writes across network RAID will be slower because they need to be commited to the mirror, but not all VMs would need to have this enabled, and I don’t think performance is our primary concern when it comes to our use of virtualization.

What Will We Go With?

Like when we tried to figure out what to do about storage, I don’t think this is a choice we can make over night. Virtual clusters are very appealing to me, but we will need to take them for a spin and learn what the limitations are. Centralized storage doesn’t sit well with the ideals and promises of commodity computing, but as I said before, system administrators need to operate in the real world with real constraints — so a SAN might be the best solution for us.

I’ve recently been looking back on what we have written about our architecture in the past, and came to a stunning realization. That realization is that while we have many many different articles about what we have been doing there hasn’t been a good, solid overview of our architecture in a long time. In fact, the last really comprehensive write-up was done by Jeff before this blog even existed. And, boy I do have to say there has been quite a lot of change behind the scenes since then. So, my dear readers I’m going to take some time – and my next few blog posts – to give everyone an in depth look into how we have the Stack Exchange Network setup to serve between 12 and 14 Million page views per day.

How these posts will breakdown

Since we have obviously grown, and are offering more services to our users I’m going to break these posts out by each of the 4 major services we offer to our user base:

  • Core Q&A (this includes the API)
  • Careers
  • Chat
  • Community Blogs

Each one of these systems all work towards our goal of making the internet better, but they have different requirements and different challenges.

In this first post, I’ll be focusing on our core Q&A system, since that is after all our bread and butter.

Core Q&A

First, a high level overview of how everything is put together:

The Hardware

Our core hardware setup hasn’t changed all that much. Well, I should say the chassis haven’t changed that much. We’ve done a lot of work to upgrade the internals of the servers when needed to address performance issues as they came up, as well as handle issues that resulted from Stack Overflow being so big.

Web Tier

Of these 10 Servers, 3 are dedicated to Stack Overflow with an additional 3 servers serving Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange Network. We have one server dedicated to Dev/QA – which also hosts Our Web Tier machines normally operate between 5 and 20% utilization. We have plenty of room to grow on these boxes.

  • 10 Dell R610 IIS web servers:
    • 2x Intel Xeon Processor E5640 @ 2.66 GHz Quad Core with 8 threads
    • 16 GB RAM
    • Windows Server 2008 R2
    • 2 drives
      • RAID 1
      • 2x Intel 320 300GB SSD (RAID 1)

DB Tier

We have two database server pairs. One pair is dedicated to running Stack Overflow, and the other runs the rest of the network. We run development against the secondary server of the non-stack overflow database pair. Both of our database pairs run at about 20% utilization, so once again we have room to grow here as well.

  • 2 Dell R710 database servers:
    • 2x Intel Xeon Processor X5680 @ 3.33 GHz
    • 96 GB RAM
    • 8 spindles
      • Mirrored Pair for OS
      • 6 disk RAID10 for databases
    • SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1
  • 2 Dell R710 database servers (Stack Overflow Dedicated):
    • 2x Intel Xeon Processor X5680 @ 3.33 GHz
    • 96 GB RAM
    • 8 drives
      • Mirrored Pair for OS
      • 6 drive RAID10 of Intel X25-E SSDs for Database
    • SQL Server 2008 R2 SP1

Caching Tier

We run redundant Redis servers for our caching tier.

  • 2 Dell R610 Redis servers:
    • 2x Intel Xeon Processor E5640 @ 2.66 GHz
    • 16 GB RAM
    • CentOS

Network Layer

We use HAProxy for our load balancing, and Cisco Switching.

  • 2 Dell R610 HAProxy servers:
    • 1x Intel Xeon Processor E5640 @ 2.66 GHz
    • 4 GB RAM
    • Ubuntu Server
  • 6 WS-C2960S-48TS-L Gigabit switches
    • FlexStack (two stacks, 4 switches and 2 switches)

Data Integrity

As with any system, making sure that your data is backed up and the backups are good is an integral part to your service offering. We backup our databases nightly and restore them to two different locations. One local to our NY data center for our devs to work against, and one remote in our OR data center.


Overall I believe that we are in a good place and have plenty of room to grow given our current setup. As always we will constantly be looking at our infrastructure and tweaking it to get the best performance possible and give our users the best experience possible.

Recently there was a question on the Programmers site asking “Why don’t all companies buy developers the best hardware?” This is actually a very interesting question and there was a good deal of discourse on the topic, as there always is when you get a group of professionals talking about the tools of their trade.

We here at Stack Exchange pride ourselves on not letting the technology get in the way of our devs. We want them to be able to do their job – which is writing code, and doing it well – with minimal hassle. Now, I have to take a brief moment to make a little bit of a note some of the things we do do not scale.

The philosophy that is maintained when getting a developer a new machine is a pretty simple one:

> If a dev is constantly struggling with their machine they aren’t getting work done, they aren’t happy, and they are producing bad code. All of these things are more expensive than a nice developer machine

As a sysadmin – and hence the guy in charge of getting the devs what they need you find out really quickly that they know what they want for the most part, and for those that you don’t ask if you give them a powerful machine with a lot of screen real estate they are generally very happy.

Since I mentioned earlier that there are some things we do here that aren’t all that scalable – in that they work for a company with 20 devs but not 100 i’ll split them up.

The Scalable

The base config that I get new devs in the NY office is:

  • Dell Optiplex 980 class tower
  • Max out the RAM
  • Best i7 Processor that I can get in it
  • SSD primary drive
  • 7.2k large (500GB – 1TB) Secondary Drive
  • 30″ Primary Monitor
  • 20″ Secondary monitor (turned sideways)

Every dev picks their own keyboard – we may give them the crappy one that comes with the machine to get them up and running, but they can request any keyboard/mouse combo they want (and … i do mean any).

The not so scalable

  • For our remote devs we get workstation replacement class laptops. Basically I go out and find the most powerful laptop I can get at the time they start, as well as a 30″ monitor to go with it. Not Scalable.
  • At least one dev in the NY office has a fully customized hand built machine with 2 30″ monitors. VERY not scalable.
  • Whatever they want – within reason

Basically, it boils down to get them what they need to get their job done. One of the biggest challenge to some people is that they do not have management’s buy-in to get the Devs what they need. I find that this is a sad state of affairs, but I have no real advice to offer – especially since I work somewhere that management has mandated great dev machines.

We recently changed the NICs in our web tier and primary database servers from Broadcom to Intel based NICs based on some … issues we had been having. After we put them in they worked reasonably well, but we knew that they could be faster and push more data. When I started to dig into just what we could do to tweak the pleathora of settings for the new NICs I found a few settings that would probably help a little bit, and one technology that could help us out tremendously.

Changes at a glance

  • Turned on Intel I/OAT
  • Adjusted Send and Recieve buffers to 2048 (max allowed)
  • Turned off interrupt moderation
  • Increased the Receive Side Scaling Queues from 1 to 4

The long version

The first and biggest change is that we turned on Intel’s I/OAT technology. It’s a collection of different techniques that work together to improve the performance of your host networking, as defined on Intel’s website:

  • Intel® QuickData Technology — enables data copy by the chipset instead of the CPU, to move data more efficiently through the server and provide fast, scalable, and reliable throughput.
  • Direct Cache Access (DCA) — allows a capable I/O device, such as a network controller, to place data directly into CPU cache, reducing cache misses and improving application response times.
  • Extended Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI-X) – distributes I/O interrupts to multiple CPUs and cores, for higher efficiency, better CPU utilization, and higher application performance.
  • Receive Side Coalescing (RSC) — aggregates packets from the same TCP/IP flow into one larger packet, reducing per-packet processing costs for faster TCP/IP processing.
  • Low Latency Interrupts — tune interrupt interval times depending on the latency sensitivity of the data, using criteria such as port number or packet size, for higher processing efficiency.

The catch is you need to be running a full Intel hardware stack. Your CPU, Motherboard, BIOS, NIC and OS all need to be compatible with the technology to be able to use it. Once you have the right stack in place, you might have to turn on a BIOS option, but that’s it no tweaking or poking to make it just right, it’s just right out of the box. Turning it on was as simple as flipping a BIOS setting, aptly named “Intel I/OAT.”

Performance tuning options

The performance options are all exposed via the PROSet utility making it nice and easy to change, no need to go digging into the registry for some esoteric key that may or may not be there. For each of them there is a trade off you need to consider. Some of the options will increase host CPU, some will cause higher host memory usage. To find the right value for your systems you really need to evaluate your overall situation and see if the trade offs are worth it.

Send and Receive Buffers

The Send and Receive buffers where set to the maximum allowed value of 2048. The trade off here is that you will consume more host memory. For us this is not a big deal since we have a lot of RAM on our boxes. Also, we had been seeing a good deal of Zero-window TCP packets when investigating our network so we needed to increase the buffer anyway.

Interrupt Moderation

The Interrupt Moderation feature was disabled. This feature allows you to have the NIC throttle the number of interrupts to the CPU which will limit the number of CPU cycles used by the NIC interrupts. Turning this off will increase your CPU usage, but it will also prevent packets from sitting there waiting for an interrupt to be proccessed. The increased cpu is a pain point for us right now (we are working on fixing that) but I believe it’s worth it.

Receive Side Scaling Queues

Receive Side Scaling is a technology that allows you to process a TCP connection across multiple cores. This allows for more efficient cache and processor usage when you TCP connection is not tied to a single core. When you are using this feature it will only use real physical cores to process TCP connections, you are not able to use this with hyper thread cores.

Receive Side Scaling Queues are essentially buffer space that is used between the NIC and the CPU when you are using Receive Side Scaling. This is another setting that has a trade off between host CPU and performance. I opted for the trade off, and increased the queues from 1 to 4 queues.

Additional notes

  • Since I/OAT needs BIOS support and the BIOS on our web tier was woefully out of date anyway I updated to the latest BIOS for those machines
  • I updated the Intel PROSet utility to verion 16.1 from 16.0

We are less than twenty four hours into using these new setting, but everything looks much much better through our peak traffic today. So far we are very happy with the results of these changes.

We’ve been doing a lot of talking about some of the growing pains we have been having with our database server. And how we are going to deal with it. Well we will be moving Stack Overflow’s database to its own hardware this Friday (2011-03-11).


2011-03-11 9:00pm Eastern (2011-03-12 02:00 UTC)


To Make everything MORE AWESOME


2 new Dell R710′s

  • 2x Intel Xeon Processor X5680 3.33 GHz
  • 96GB of RAM
  • 6 Intel X25-E SSD’s in a RAID 10

What will this mean?

First, we will be putting Stack Overflow into Read Only mode again for the maintenance – just like we did when we went down the Oregon trail. Once the migration is complete, Stack Overflow will be on its own DB pair, and can run free, and the rest of the Stack Exchange sites don’t have to contend with the Megalopolis for database time, making them MORE AWESOME as well.

I will be upgrading the Stack Exchange network’s switching infrastructure on Saturday February, 26th. There should be minimal downtime while I do this, however the sites may be a little slow as I work through the Web Tier. Additionally there will be about a 10-20 minute complete site downtime while I move the DB servers and routers.

What exactly will I be doing? Why, I’ll be removing our current Dell PowerConnect 5448 switches and replacing them with Cisco 2960-S-48TS-L switches.

The plan is to start working on moving the web tier Saturday afternoon and be finished moving all services by early evening. I will post to Blog.Serverfault about one hour before the start of work.

I thought as a break form the normal prose some of our readers might enjoy a short overview of the Stack Exchange Network (including Stack Overflow, Server Fault, and Super User) from a technical view:


  • 95 Million Page Views a Month
  • 800 HTTP requests a second
  • 180 DNS requests a second
  • 55 Megabits per second

Data Centers:

Production Servers*:

  • 12 Web Servers (Windows Server 2008 R2)
  • 2 Database Servers (Windows Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server 2008 R2)
  • 2 Load Balancers (Ubuntu Server and HAProxy)
  • 2 Caching Servers (Redis on CentOS)
  • 1 Router / Firewall (Ubuntu Server)
  • 3 DNS Servers (Bind on CentOS)

Software and Technologies Used:

Developers and System Administrators:

  • 14 Developers
  • 2 System Administrators

*(excludes fail over and management servers)

Our Storage Decision

George Beech

We’ve been trying to figure out what to do about the Disk subsystem IO problems we have. We spent many hours talking to vendors, trusted advisers (ok, reaaaally smart people who were willing to help us – and put up with our questions), and each other trying to find the best solution. We think we have, for now.

Before I get into what we decided to do I want to talk a little about our thought process and the requirements we put together to shape our decision.


It should be fast

I know this may seem silly but we pride ourselves on the fact that our sites load not just fast but really fast. We needed a solution that didn’t just get us to the point where our storage subsystem was good, but decimated that barrier and made it great. The added benefit to this approach is we should be able to handle the IO needs of our sites for at least the next year or so. (Assuming our growth rate projections are accurate, of course.)

It should be reasonably priced

The primary requirement of this upgrade was to get more speed out of our storage subsystem, so it makes no sense to spend $100k or more on a SAN with a whole bunch of features that we won’t use in the next 6-12 months. But we don’t want to spend the least amount of money we possibly can on equipment, either. Like Goldilocks, we needed to find a solution that was just right.

It should be reasonably safe

By safety, I mean our data won’t go up in smoke when there is a catastrophic failure — and it needs to keep our services running briskly without a ton of overhead, either mental or physical.  We’re not a bank, and we don’t need to over-build our systems to never lose a single bit and always be 100% accurate. But we also respect that you put a lot of effort into making this place great, and we owe it to you to treat the content you’ve contributed with care.

Putting aside all the cool stuff, all the other feature options, does spending X on storage technology Y give us the best price/performance?


The first thing we did is to explore the different classes of server storage, and look at the pros and cons of each.

1. Direct Attached Storage enclosures

Pros: Fairly low cost, although more expensive than internal storage. You get a large number of spindles to run faster with.
Cons: Normally can only be connected to a low number of hosts (1-4), for what you get, it’s a large investment.

2. SAN technologies

Pros: Flexible storage, generally expandable (for a price), lots of disks.
Cons: Very expensive. And to get the best performance we would need an infrastructure upgrade as well, either 10 Gigabit Ethernet or Fibre Channel.

3. PCI bus based flash drives (FusionIO)

Pros: ridiculously fast. not a horrible price. Did i mention F-A-S-T FAST?
Cons: relatively new tech, giant single point of failure with no great way to compensate for it.

4. Traditional Solid State Hard Drive (SSD) storage

Pros: Fast, potentially really fast. flexibility for future upgrades without sinking too much money into one technology.
Cons: Have to get non-vendor “approved” drives, since our vendor wanted insane amounts of money for a single drive.


We had grandiose plans to bring a few of the finalist options in house to do a barrage of tests, but this turned out to be harder than we thought. Storage vendors were really reluctant to allow us to bring in demo units of their hardware. When I’m looking to spend tens of thousands of dollars, I’m sorry, but I really want to either a) go to your lab and actually run test against a unit that I’m going to be buying, or b) bring a unit in house for a few weeks or a month and be able to verify that the unit will do what you claim it will. What actually happened was that we only brought in one option: the Intel X25-E solid state hard drive. The price wasn’t too expensive to bring them in on a flier, and if they didn’t work out we would be able to re-purpose them somewhere else so it wouldn’t be a total loss.

We decided to use Brent Ozar’s benchmark that he did on the FusionIO drives as our benchmark. Brent isn’t some random blogger, you understand — he is a database ninja. When he does a benchmark, he does a benchmark.

Here’s a quick comparison of our results and his:

Random Reads — 2 threads, 8 outstanding requests, 64k blocks

FusionIO Intel X25-E
in RAID10
MB/s 1424 1064
IOs/s 22788 17023

Random Writes — 2 threads, 1 outstanding request, 64k blocks

FusionIO Intel X25-E
in RAID10
MB/s 632 584
IOs/s 10114 9337

The numbers for the X-25′s are actually limited by the controller since the H700 has a max throughput of 600MBps. We do not know how much faster this setup could go if we put a higher throughput controller in the boxes.

We ended up not bringing in any of the SANs due to the amazing performance we got out of the Intel X25 solid state drives. Speed was all we were really after. We don’t seen the need for a SAN at this point so we’ll let that money continue to earn interest in the bank for now.

The full test that we ended up running was straight out of – you guessed it – Brent Ozar’s playbook. That us, using SQLIO to run a whole barrage of tests against the storage system.

The test system consisted of:

  • Dell R710 with 96GB of memory
  • 2 Xeon X5680 CPUs
  • 6 Intel X25-E drives in a RAID 10 array
  • H700 RAID controller with 1GB of memory

The gold standard for fast is the FusionIO drives. In our benchmarking, a RAID 10 array of Intel X25 drives got within about 25% of FusionIO performance for reads, and within 10% for writes. That exceeded everyone’s expectations and made our decision very easy. Six X25-E’s are about half the list price of one FusionIO, and putting them in a RAID array eases any concerns about reliability.

For all who are interested the raw data can be found in this archive. The archive also includes a pretty ugly Perl script that converts the raw output from SQLIO into a csv file.

> I would like to take a moment to thank all the people who helped us out looking at all these options. > > – Our vendors who put up with insane questions and flip floppery – Dell, CDW, and Fusion-IO. > – All of the regulars in the Server Fault chat room. > – Of course Brent Ozar who … is … godlike? Hmm, let’s just go with “great guy”.

If you are really observant you may have noticed in my RRD graph post that our write times on our database server are not so hot:

Also looking at this from SQLs perspective confirms this:

Our sequential log writing however is really fast (<10ms), but there is a write performance problem when it comes to our database files that we need to fix.

Too Many Variables

Figuring out what direction to go in with our storage is proving to be quite challenging. The main reason is that there are just so many variables:

  • Cost and The Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
  • What will satisfy our needs and prepare us for growth?
  • What gives the best performance for our workload and how is that workload going to change?
  • Reliability and fail over options
  • What direction is storage heading in as far as technology goes
  • What fits our scaling pattern

Right now we are thinking about 3 main options:

  • A PCI card storage solution like a FusionIO drive
  • A SAN
  • SSDs in the servers themselves

However, before looking at these options there are some fundamentals and issues to consider when it comes to storage.

The Problem with Figuring Out what is Needed for an IO Workload:

When it comes to analyzing IO workload there are some basic questions that must be answered:

How Much?

There are two main measurements used to answer the question of “how much?” with storage. There is how much data is moved within a certain amount of time (MB/s) and/or how many logical operations there are (IOPS or input/output operations per second). When looking at the workload the amount of operations in the queue is also considered for data that has a steady rate.

How Much of What?

The operations are either going to be reads or writes. The reads or writes will also be either sequential or random. So you end up with some blend of the following four possibilities:

  • Sequential Reads
  • Sequential Writes
  • Random Reads
  • Random Writes

What is the Shape Over Time?

Sometimes the shape of IO will be a steady stream of data, but often disk operations will get batched to make the IO more efficient. This means that the shape of the IO will usually be spiky on a micro level (say over several seconds). There will also be a shape on the macro level because most services have peak usage times and there are also scheduled IO intensive operations such as backups.

How Fast?

With whatever workload, operations need to be fulfilled within a certain amount of time. If the disk IO system is busy, then operations have to wait in a queue to be fulfilled.

My main point with all of this is that it is not advisable to just take an average of the amount of IOPS and Megabytes per second over a day and go buy a storage solution. This does not account for how fast these IOPS are satisfied or the shape of data over time. Even if these are taken into account, and taken into account correctly, the workload still should be tested on the actual equipment. The best an analysis can do is give a hypothesis. This leaves two possible courses of action:

  1. Take an educated guess and buy something
  2. Set up a demo unit or go to a demo location and load test the application

The main problem with option number 2 is that this is a large time investment, and that you have to have the capability to load test your application in a way that accurately reflects real world usage.

My Personal Gripe with Storage Vendors

My gripe is that most large or fast storage solutions can not be purchased at Micro Center. More seriously, even when talking to a sales person on the phone they won’t say what all the options are and what they really cost. Sometimes there is an option to price them out on the website, but the real cost is what the sales person will knock it down to. The sales people want the data I was just talking about (often a limited subset which will only give them a rough ballpark). I have always hated this sales method, I want to see what I get for certain costs — not tell them how much I can spend and have them tell me after that.

The other big thing is that vendors are not public with their actual performance numbers. The SPC1 benchmarks are the best effort I have seen to provide useful information, but the amount of devices in that repository is limited. To a degree this is understandable given all the different workloads as I mentioned, but some basic numbers on various workloads under a Raid 10 configuration would be nice. In other words “Give me some data, please”.

Our Particular Situation and Scaling Model

The sheer size of the database compared to our other sites at the moment is a major factor for us. Looking at the above image the amount of IOPS on the database is 30 times the amount of IOPS for the database. Because of this treating’s database as a separate entity for the other databases does make sense.

We also don’t need that much capacity. Going off of Nick Craver’s growth analysis the SO Database will grow from 85 GB to 256 GB over the next 36 months (note: this is just a projection).

I have mentioned this before but our model has been to strike a balance between scaling up and out. We are not particularly attracted to building giant monster systems, nor do we want a bunch of cheap little boxes. We want a balanced amount of medium powered servers. In my mind this fits well with a Microsoft stack.

The Current Options

So taking the above into account here is my current thinking on what the following options might mean for us. We don’t have any demo units in hand yet but our plan is to evaluate FuisionIO as the PCI card option, Equallogic as the SAN option, and Dell approved SSDs put into our current Dell r710 database servers.

Option 1: FusionIO


  • FusionIO is going to be the fastest option out there. To quote Brent Ozar in his review of FusionIO: “The only way to outperform a Fusion-IO drive is to invest six figures in a SAN and hire a really sharp SAN admin.”
  • Simplicity. There is a lot that goes into configuring a SAN correctly, with FusionIO we would copy our database file to the FusionIO drive and be done.


  • Limited single system availability. There doesn’t seem to be a simple RAID equivalent. For each single server there will likely be only one of these cards in each server. Two can be put in a server and set up to use software RAID but I wonder if that might just end up lowering the availability. In theory since these are solid state devices and not mechanical I would expect to have better reliability than hard drives, but the technology is still fairly new.
  • Limited multi-system availability. Any sort of SQL clustering options are out the window and what you have left is log shipping and synchronous or asynchronous mirroring.

I think the FusionIO option fits our scaling model well. We currently have two DB servers — a primary and a fail over. We are planning on expanding to 4 servers so Stack Overflow (and maybe the rest of the original trilogy) can have its own primary and secondary server. There are different options, but one 640GB FusionIO would cover growth for the trilogy and provide the fastest speed compared to a SAN or SSDs. We could then have asynchronous mirroring to the secondary server and in a failover situation Brent Ozar estimated 90 seconds of data loss. Downtime might be around 30 minutes until we get the secondary server up and going manually. We generally favor speed over the highest possible uptime. It is not that we are glib about the uptime of our service, but we don’t have the uptime requirements of a financial institution. For our sites with higher uptime requirements such as Careers we can use the storage in the servers and possibly synchronous mirroring. I also imagine either this or SSDs in the servers themselves will be the cheapest solution — the 640GB drives were quoted at about 10k each for us and the 320GB at about 6.5k from a vendor.

Option 2: A 10GE EqualLogic San with some SSDs


  • Flexibility in growth and tiered storage. With a SAN we can add shelves as we grow and can tier our storage effectively. So for example we could have an SSD array for the trilogy and a SAS array for our smaller sites. As our sites grow we could move them accordingly. We could also use storage for logs or tempdb.
  • Flexibility in availability options. Unlike a fusion drive or SSDs in the server clustering options are now open to us.
  • 10GE might be useful for other things if we start to hit network bottlenecks. This is the main reason why 10GE appeals to us more than fiber.


  • The SAN as a logical unit is a single point of failure unless you buy two. I know these have lots of built-in redundancy but nonetheless our current thinking is that we would want two if we went the SAN route.
  • Cost. These things are not cheap. The EqualLogic PS6010S with 8 SSDs is priced at 46k on their site. The redundant 10GE switches if we go with Dell would be about 20k. So without even factoring in other various total cost of ownership factors if we want two SANs we are talking well over 100k. That would be the same cost as getting at least 8 more of our current database servers.

The flexibility and growth options that a SAN offers are appealing. The cost could drastically change if we decided we could live with one SAN, look at different vendors, or give up on the option of having SSDs in the SAN. The performance won’t be as high as the FusionIO would be but for our workload that extra performance might not really matter.

Option 3: SSDs in the Dell Servers

This option would be pretty similar to the FusionIO option except that there will be a trade off of an increase in single server availability options but a decrease in speed. With SSDs we can use a traditional RAID configuration in the servers. These drives on Dell’s site are 4.6k for a 2.5 inch SAS 3 Gbps drive, so for a mirror of two drives it would be $9.2k and would give us 150GB capacity. This wouldn’t leave us much room for growth so we would probably want 300GB capacity. In RAID 10 that will cost about 18.4k. At the moment I don’t have any data on how this would perform but with the current cost of the Dell approved SSDs for our servers this option isn’t too appealing to me yet.


Right now we are still in the preliminary stages. Initially I am fond of the FusionIO option where as George is more in favor of a SAN. One of the main reasons I favor FusionIO at the moment is that it would satisfy our growth in the short term, interestingly enough this is one of the reasons George is less fond of it. George’s main reason for a SAN is that we get greater flexibility with the features a SAN offers such as the ability to fully cluster, use snapshotting, full LUN replication, and dynamic expansion (on some models). By going the SAN route earlier and not later we don’t put off solving the problem until about a year from now when it might be harder to change our infrastructure. If we were to get a SAN now we will learn how to use the advantages given to us by the SAN’s flexibility. I generally agree with this philosophy but not in this particular case. The reason I favor putting off a SAN is that I feel in a year or so the SAN options that include SSDs might be a lot cheaper and more attractive. Also the FusionIO option fits well with our current scaling model. Although the growth of our Stack Exchange sites looks very promising to me, I feel it is too early to predict how they will grow. This is not so much in terms of visitors but more in terms of the IO workload growth. Our developers could make changes that greatly effect our IO workload. So we might have a much better understanding of what we need 6 months to a year from now than we do currently.

What we really need is to get more data on the performance of these various options and get our hands on some demo units. I feel like all 3 of these paths are valid options. Also there are valid options we haven’t looked as closely at yet (for example SANs that don’t support SSDs). At this point it is clear that choosing a storage route to take is no small task.