However you have to get > 480GB which ridiculously large for a journal. I believe they are pretty expensive too. –––– 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 15:49, Sebastien Han <sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
