Sorry I was only looking at the 4K aligned results. –––– Sébastien Han Cloud Engineer "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood.” Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 Mail: sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx Address : 10, rue de la Victoire - 75009 Paris Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:46, Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 15.01.2014 15:44, schrieb Mark Nelson: >> On 01/15/2014 08:39 AM, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>> >>> Am 15.01.2014 15:34, schrieb Sebastien Han: >>>> Hum the Crucial m500 is pretty slow. The biggest one doesn’t even >>>> reach 300MB/s. >>>> Intel DC S3700 100G showed around 200MB/sec for us. >>> >>> where did you get this values from? I've some 960GB and they all have > >>> 450Mb/s write speed. Also in tests like here you see > 450MB/s >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/crucial-m500-1tb-ssd,3551-5.html >> >> Looks like at least according to Anand's chart, you'll get full write >> speed once you buy the 480GB model, but not for the 120 or 240GB models: >> >> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6884/crucial-micron-m500-review-960gb-480gb-240gb-120gb > > that's correct but the sentence was " The biggest one doesn’t even > reach 300MB/s." > >> >>> >>>> Actually, I don’t know the price difference between the crucial and >>>> the intel but the intel looks more suitable for me. Especially after >>>> Mark’s comment. >>>> >>>> –––– >>>> Sébastien Han >>>> Cloud Engineer >>>> >>>> "Always give 100%. Unless you're giving blood.” >>>> >>>> Phone: +33 (0)1 49 70 99 72 >>>> Mail: sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Address : 10, rue de la Victoire - 75009 Paris >>>> Web : www.enovance.com - Twitter : @enovance >>>> >>>> On 15 Jan 2014, at 15:28, Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 01/15/2014 08:03 AM, Robert van Leeuwen wrote: >>>>>>> Power-Loss Protection: In the rare event that power fails while the >>>>>>> drive is operating, power-loss protection helps ensure that data >>>>>>> isn’t >>>>>>> corrupted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Seems that not all power protected SSDs are created equal: >>>>>> http://lkcl.net/reports/ssd_analysis.html >>>>>> >>>>>> The m500 is not tested but the m4 is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Up to now it seems that only Intel seems to have done his homework. >>>>>> In general they *seem* to be the most reliable SSD provider. >>>>> >>>>> Even at that, there has been some concern on the list (and lkml) that >>>>> certain older Intel drives without super-capacitors are ignoring >>>>> ATA_CMD_FLUSH, making them very fast (which I like!) but potentially >>>>> dangerous (boo!). The 520 in particular is a drive I've used for a >>>>> lot of Ceph performance testing but I'm afraid that if it's not >>>>> properly handling CMD FLUSH requests, it may not be indicative of the >>>>> performance folks would see on other drives that do. >>>>> >>>>> On the third hand, if drives with supercaps like the Intel DC S3700 >>>>> can safely ignore CMD_FLUSH and maintain high performance (even when >>>>> there are a lot of O_DSYNC calls, ala the journal), that potentially >>>>> makes them even more attractive (and that drive already has >>>>> relatively high sequential write performance and high write endurance). >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Robert van Leeuwen >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
