Thanks for your comments. Andrei -- Andrei Mikhailovsky Director Arhont Information Security Web: http://www.arhont.com http://www.wi-foo.com Tel: +44 (0)870 4431337 Fax: +44 (0)208 429 3111 PGP: Key ID - 0x2B3438DE PGP: Server - keyserver.pgp.com DISCLAIMER The information contained in this email is intended only for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may be confidential or contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any perusal, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please immediately advise us by return email at andrei at arhont.com and delete and purge the email and any attachments without making a copy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Balzer" <chibi@xxxxxxx> To: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <andrei at arhont.com> Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com Sent: Friday, 1 August, 2014 10:41:09 AM Subject: Re: Using Crucial MX100 for journals or cache pool 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. >From my understanding doing something like a backup of your actual pool would write everything to the cache pool in that process. Christian -- Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer chibi at gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications http://www.gol.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140801/58b3136e/attachment.htm>
 |