On Fri, 1 Aug 2014 09:38:34 +0100 (BST) Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: > Hello guys, > > Was wondering if anyone has tried using the Crucial MX100 ssds either > for osd journals or cache pool? It seems like a good cost effective > alternative to the more expensive drives and read/write performance is > very good as well. > If you're going purely by price, a 128GB MX100 doesn't have much of an advantage over a 120GB Intel DC S3500. While the endurance is given as 72TB for all MX100 models, it increases with size for the Intel ones, 275TB for the 480GB model. So a while a 512GB MX100 is cheaper, it compares very poorly to a 480GB DC S3500 when it comes to TBW/$. And of course when it comes to the _consistent_ performance of the DC S3700 SSDs, nothing more needs to be said than the articles David referred to. That's what makes them so well suited for journal operations. If you're looking for a low cost cache pool, keep in mind that the warranty of the Crucial SSDs is just 3 years. If you stick to that time frame, that's about 65GB writes per day. This might be enough, put it is probably a lot harder to predict write loads for a cache pool unlike with a journal.
 |