Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40. Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension. The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below: https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO. Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this: fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test The results are as the following: ----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec ----------------------- So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad. Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing: ----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec ----------------------- I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds. It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss. However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable. So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power). Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently? Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea? Thank you in advance for any help, Best Regards, Hermann -- hermann@qwer.tk PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
Hello, think about migrating to a way faster and better Ceph version and towards bluestore to increase the performance with the existing hardware. If you want to go with PCIe card, the Samsung PM1725b can provide quite good speeds but at much higher costs then the EVO. If you want to check drives, take a look at the uncached write latency. The lower the value is, the better will be the drive. -- Martin Verges Managing director Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263 Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx Am Do., 24. Okt. 2019 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Hermann Himmelbauer < hermann@qwer.tk>:
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec -----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec -----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards, Hermann
-- hermann@qwer.tk PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers) _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Dear Hermann, try your tests again with volatile write cache disabled ([s/h]dparm -W 0 DEVICE). If your disks have super capacitors, you should then see spec performance (possibly starting with iodopth=2 or 4) with your fio test. A good article is this one here: https://yourcmc.ru/wiki/index.php?title=Ceph_performance . The feature you are looking for is called "power loss protection". I would expect Samsung PRO disks to have it. The fio test with iodepth=1 will give you an indication of what you an expect from a single OSD deployed on the disk. When choosing disks, also look for DWPD>=1. In addition, as Martin writes, consider upgrading and deploy all new disks with bluestore. Best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Martin Verges <martin.verges@croit.io> Sent: 24 October 2019 21:21 To: Hermann Himmelbauer Cc: ceph-users Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster Hello, think about migrating to a way faster and better Ceph version and towards bluestore to increase the performance with the existing hardware. If you want to go with PCIe card, the Samsung PM1725b can provide quite good speeds but at much higher costs then the EVO. If you want to check drives, take a look at the uncached write latency. The lower the value is, the better will be the drive. -- Martin Verges Managing director Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io<mailto:martin.verges@croit.io> Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263 Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx Am Do., 24. Okt. 2019 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Hermann Himmelbauer <hermann@qwer.tk<mailto:hermann@qwer.tk>>: Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40. Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension. The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below: https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO. Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this: fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test The results are as the following: ----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec ----------------------- So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad. Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing: ----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec ----------------------- I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds. It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss. However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable. So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power). Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently? Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea? Thank you in advance for any help, Best Regards, Hermann -- hermann@qwer.tk<mailto:hermann@qwer.tk> PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers) _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io<mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
Hi, the Samsung PM1725b is definitely a good choice when it comes to "lower" price enterprise SSDs. They cost pretty much the same as the Samsung Pro SSDs but offer way higher DWPD and power loss protection. My benchmarks of the 3.2TB version in a PCIe 2.0 slot (the card is 3.0!) fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=10 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test write: IOPS=154k, BW=601MiB/s (630MB/s)(35.2GiB/60003msec) fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4M --numjobs=5 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test write: IOPS=679, BW=2717MiB/s (2849MB/s)(159GiB/60005msec) Regards, Georg On 24.10.19 21:21, Martin Verges wrote:
Hello,
think about migrating to a way faster and better Ceph version and towards bluestore to increase the performance with the existing hardware.
If you want to go with PCIe card, the Samsung PM1725b can provide quite good speeds but at much higher costs then the EVO. If you want to check drives, take a look at the uncached write latency. The lower the value is, the better will be the drive.
-- Martin Verges Managing director
Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io <mailto:martin.verges@croit.io> Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges
croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263
Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx
Am Do., 24. Okt. 2019 um 21:09 Uhr schrieb Hermann Himmelbauer <hermann@qwer.tk <mailto:hermann@qwer.tk>>:
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec -----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec -----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards, Hermann
-- hermann@qwer.tk <mailto:hermann@qwer.tk> PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers) _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Hi, sorry for intervening, but please try the first also with -fsync=1, NVMes sometimes ignore -sync=1 (Bluestore uses fsync).
the Samsung PM1725b is definitely a good choice when it comes to "lower" price enterprise SSDs. They cost pretty much the same as the Samsung Pro SSDs but offer way higher DWPD and power loss protection.
My benchmarks of the 3.2TB version in a PCIe 2.0 slot (the card is 3.0!)
fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=10 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test write: IOPS=154k, BW=601MiB/s (630MB/s)(35.2GiB/60003msec)
fio --filename=/dev/nvme0n1 --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4M --numjobs=5 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test write: IOPS=679, BW=2717MiB/s (2849MB/s)(159GiB/60005msec)
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
It's easy: https://yourcmc.ru/wiki/Ceph_performance
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec -----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec -----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards, Hermann
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
Especially https://yourcmc.ru/wiki/Ceph_performance#CAPACITORS.21 but I recommend you to read the whole article -- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
Not related to the original topic but the Micron case in that article is fascinating and a little surprising. With pretty much best in class hardware in a lab environment: Potential 25,899,072 4KiB random write IOPs goes to 477K Potential 23,826,216 4KiB random read IOPs goes to 2,000,000 477K write IOPs and 2M read IOPs isn't terrible especially given there is replication but the overhead when you look at the numbers is still staggering. Thanks for sharing this article. -Drew -----Original Message----- From: Vitaliy Filippov <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 6:32 PM To: ceph-users@ceph.com; Hermann Himmelbauer <hermann@qwer.tk> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster It's easy: https://yourcmc.ru/wiki/Ceph_performance
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your- ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/ or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec -----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec -----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards, Hermann
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Disabling write cache helps with the 970 Pro, but it still sucks. I've worked on a setup with heavy metadata requirements (gigantic S3 buckets being listed) that unfortunately had all of that stored on 970 Pros and that never really worked out. Just get a proper SSD like the 883, 983, or 1725. The (tiny) price difference vs. the consumer disks just isn't worth the hassle and the problems you are going to run into. Paul On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 9:08 PM Hermann Himmelbauer <hermann@qwer.tk> wrote:
Hi, I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on 3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks), interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right, not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is... or here: https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio" as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting --name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
----------------------- 1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec -----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
----------------------- Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter Jobs: 1: read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4: read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10: read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec -----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag "O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards, Hermann
-- hermann@qwer.tk PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers) _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
Is this a reply to Paul’s message from 11 months ago? https://bit.ly/32oZGlR The PM1725b is interesting in that it has explicitly configurable durability vs capacity, which may be even more effective than user-level short-stroking / underprovisioning.
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
The thread above explains that. Basically it’s not as simple as “faster”. IOPS describe behavior along one axis under a certain workload for a certain length of times. Subtle factors: * With increasing block size, queue depth, operation rate / duration, some less-robust drives will exhibit cliffing where their performance falls off dramatically —————— | |________ ————————————————— (that may or may not render usefully, your UMA may vary) Or they may lose your data when there’s a power event. * Is IOPS what you’re really concerned with? As your OSD nodes are increasingly saturated by parallel requests (or if you’re overly aggressive with your PG ratio) , you may see more IOPS / throughput, at the risk of latencying going down the drain. This may be reasonably acceptable for RGW bucket data, but maybe not indexes and for sure not for RBD volumes. * The nature of the workload can dramatically affect performance ** block size ** queue depth ** r/w mix ** sync ** phoon ** etc This is one thing that (hopefully) distinguishes “enterprise” drives from “consumer” drives. There’s one “enterprise” drive (now EOL) that turned out to develop UREs and dramatically increased latency when presented with an actual enterprise Ceph — vs desktop — workload. I fought that for a year and found that older drives actually fared better than newer, though the vendor denyed an engineering or process change. Consider the total cost of saving a few bucks on cheap drives that appear *on paper* to have attractive marketing specs, vs the nightmares you will face and the other things you won’t have time to work on if you’re consumed with pandemic drive failures. Look up the performance firmware update history of the various 840/860 EVO even when used on desktops, which is not to say that the 970 does or doesn’t exhibit the same or similar issues. Consider if you want to risk your corporate/production data, applications, and users on desktop-engineered drives. In the end, you really need to buy or borrow eval drives and measure how they perform under both benchmarks and real workloads. And Ceph mon / OSD service is *not* the same as any FIO or other benchmark tool load. https://github.com/louwrentius/fio-plot is a delightfully visual tool that shows the IOPS / BW / latency tradeoffs Ideally one would compare FIO benchmarks across drives and also provision multiple models on a given system, slap OSDs on them, throw your real workload at them, and after at least a month gather drive/OSD iops/latency/bw metrics for each and compare them. I’m not aware of a simple tool to manage this process, though I’d love one. ymmocv — aad
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT? _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't
13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT? ------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
Samsung PM983 M.2 I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru (mailto:vitalif@yourcmc.ru)> wrote: Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com (mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com)> пишет: Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT? ------------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io (mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io) To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io (mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io) -- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
There's also Micron 7300 Pro/Max. Please benchmark it like described here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F... (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F...) and send me the results if you get one :)) Samsung PM983 M.2 I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru (mailto:vitalif@yourcmc.ru)> wrote: Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com (mailto:seenafallah@gmail.com)> пишет: Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT? ------------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io (mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io) To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io (mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io) -- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
Thanks for the sheet. I need a low space disk for my use case (around 240GB). Do you have any suggestions with M.2 and capacitors? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:11 PM <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
There's also Micron 7300 Pro/Max. Please benchmark it like described here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F... and send me the results if you get one :))
Samsung PM983 M.2
I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingdom/en/ssd/dc1000b-data-center-boot-ssd look good for your purpose. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seena Fallah" <seenafallah@gmail.com> To: "Виталий Филиппов" <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> Cc: "Anthony D'Atri" <anthony.datri@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users@ceph.io> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:47:14 PM Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster Thanks for the sheet. I need a low space disk for my use case (around 240GB). Do you have any suggestions with M.2 and capacitors? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:11 PM <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
There's also Micron 7300 Pro/Max. Please benchmark it like described here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F... and send me the results if you get one :))
Samsung PM983 M.2
I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah <seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Hello, Please keep in mind that you can have significant operational problems if you choose too small OSDs. Sometimes your OSDs require >40G for osdmaps/pgmaps/... and the smaller you OSD, the more likely it will be a problem as Ceph is totally unable to deal with full disks and break apart. -- Martin Verges Managing director Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263 Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 15:58 Uhr schrieb <response@ifastnet.com>:
https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingdom/en/ssd/dc1000b-data-center-boot-ssd
look good for your purpose.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Seena Fallah" <seenafallah@gmail.com> To: "Виталий Филиппов" <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> Cc: "Anthony D'Atri" <anthony.datri@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@ceph.io> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:47:14 PM Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster
Thanks for the sheet. I need a low space disk for my use case (around 240GB). Do you have any suggestions with M.2 and capacitors?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:11 PM <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
There's also Micron 7300 Pro/Max. Please benchmark it like described here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F...
and send me the results if you get one :))
Samsung PM983 M.2
I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah < seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
Yes I'm planning to use only 60% - 70% of my disks and pools like buckets.index doesn't grow too much and don't need much space! I'm just trying to make this pool faster because I see it sometimes needs 1Milion iops and I think NVME is a good option for this pool. But finding a good datacenter NVME in low space is too hard :( On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 7:32 PM Martin Verges <martin.verges@croit.io> wrote:
Hello,
Please keep in mind that you can have significant operational problems if you choose too small OSDs. Sometimes your OSDs require >40G for osdmaps/pgmaps/... and the smaller you OSD, the more likely it will be a problem as Ceph is totally unable to deal with full disks and break apart.
-- Martin Verges Managing director
Mobile: +49 174 9335695 E-Mail: martin.verges@croit.io Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges
croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: Amtsgericht Munich HRB 231263
Web: https://croit.io YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx
Am Mo., 14. Sept. 2020 um 15:58 Uhr schrieb <response@ifastnet.com>:
https://www.kingston.com/unitedkingdom/en/ssd/dc1000b-data-center-boot-ssd
look good for your purpose.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Seena Fallah" <seenafallah@gmail.com> To: "Виталий Филиппов" <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> Cc: "Anthony D'Atri" <anthony.datri@gmail.com>, "ceph-users" < ceph-users@ceph.io> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 2:47:14 PM Subject: [ceph-users] Re: Choosing suitable SSD for Ceph cluster
Thanks for the sheet. I need a low space disk for my use case (around 240GB). Do you have any suggestions with M.2 and capacitors?
On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 6:11 PM <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
There's also Micron 7300 Pro/Max. Please benchmark it like described here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E9-eXjzsKboiCCX-0u0r5fAjjufLKayaut_F...
and send me the results if you get one :))
Samsung PM983 M.2
I want to have a separate disk for buckets index pool and all of my server bays are full and I should use m2 storage devices. Also the bucket index doesn't need much space so I plan to have a 6x device with replica 3 for it. Each disk could be 240GB to not waste space but there is no enterprise nvme disk in this space! Do you have any recommendations? On Sun, Sep 13, 2020 at 10:17 PM Виталий Филиппов <vitalif@yourcmc.ru> wrote:
Easy, 883 has capacitors and 970 evo doesn't 13 сентября 2020 г. 0:57:43 GMT+03:00, Seena Fallah < seenafallah@gmail.com> пишет:
Hi. How do you say 883DCT is faster than 970 EVO? I saw the specifications and 970 EVO has higher IOPS than 883DCT! Can you please tell why 970 EVO act lower than 883DCT?
------------------------------ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
-- With best regards, Vitaliy Filippov
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
participants (12)
-
Anthony D'Atri
-
Drew Weaver
-
Frank Schilder
-
Georg Fleig
-
Hermann Himmelbauer
-
Martin Verges
-
Paul Emmerich
-
response＠ifastnet.com
-
Seena Fallah
-
vitalif＠yourcmc.ru
-
Vitaliy Filippov
-
Виталий Филиппов