actually, they're very inexpensive as far as SSD's go. The 960gb m500 can be had on Amazon for $499 US on prime (as of yesterday anyway).
Sent from my mobile device. Please excuse brevity and typographical errors.
On Jan 15, 2014 9:50 AM, "Sebastien Han" <sebastien.han@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
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
