What fio test would indicate this behaviour up front? I guess something like this, but
with a duration larger than this disk cache?
[randwrite-4k-seq]
stonewall
bs=4k
rw=randwrite
fsync=1
thank you for your hint - any input is appreciated.
Please note that
Ceph does highly random IO (especially when having small object sizes),
AnandTech also states:
"Some of our other tests have shown a few signs that the 870 EVO's write
performance can drop when the SLC cache runs out, but this
straightforward sequential write pass over the entire drive doesn't
reveal any such behavior. The 870 EVO's sequential write performance is
extremely consistent, even on the second write pass." [3]
So this kind of cache handling is very interesting under the hood,
because it seems the Samsung SSD 870 Evo is able to handle sequential io
at nearly SATA line speed. However the random behaviour seems to be
inconsistent - maybe I'm able to run a big fio on the ssd once I have
one of these on my desk, but I can't promise I'll have time to.
More interesting: We also have some Kingston SEDC450. Kingston even
promises constant write speed [4] - even when specifying lower
performance. At least those drives did not fell into my eye (but I did
not examine the situation specially).
[4]
https://www.kingston.com/en/ssd/dc450-data-center-solid-state-drive
Best regards,
Michael
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: mailing-lists <mailing-lists(a)indane.de>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. Februar 2023 10:21
An: ceph-users(a)ceph.io
Betreff: [ceph-users] Re: Do not use SSDs with (small) SLC cache
Dear Michael,
I don't have an explanation for your problem unfortunately, but I just
wondered that you experience a drop in performance, that this SSD
shouldn't have. Your SSDs drives (Samsung 870 EVO) should not get slower
on large writes. You can verify this on the post you've attached [1] or
here [3].
I am curious if replacing them with other disks will improve it.
[3]
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16480/the-samsung-870-evo-ssd-1tb-4tb-
review/4
Best
Ken