Re: which SSD / experiences with Samsung 843T vs. Intel s3700

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It is not just a question of which SSD.
It's the combination of distribution (kernel version), disk controller and firmware, SSD revision and firmware.

There are several ways to select hardware
1) the most traditional way where you build your BoM on a single vendor - so you buy servers including SSDs and HBAs as a single unit and then scream at the vendor when it doesn't work. I had a good experience with vendors in this scenario.
2) based on Hardware Compatibility Lists - usually means you can't use tha latest hardware. For example LSI doesn't list most SSDs as compatible, or they only list really old firmware versions. Unusable, nobody will really help you.
3) You get a sample and test it, and you hope you will get the same hardware when you order in bulk later. We went this route and got nothing but trouble when Kingston changed their SSDs completely without changing their PN.

Would we recommend s3700/3710 for Ceph? Absolutely. But there are still people who have trouble with them in combination with LSI controllers.
Can we recommend Samsung 845 DC PRO then? I can say it worked nicely with my hardware. But surely some people had trouble with it.

I "vote" against creating such a list because of all those reasons, it could get someone in trouble. 

Jan


On 07 Sep 2015, at 11:14, Andrija Panic <andrija.panic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

There is http://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/

On the other hand, I'm not sure if SSD vendors would be happy to see their device listed performing total crap (for Journaling) ...but yes, I vote for having some oficial page if possible !

On 7 September 2015 at 11:12, Eino Tuominen <eino@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

Should we (somebody, please?) gather up a comprehensive list of suitable SSD devices to use as ceph journals? This seems to be a FAQ, and it would be nice if all the knowledge and user experiences from several different threads could be referenced easily in the future. I took a look at wiki.ceph.org and there was nothing on this.

--
  Eino Tuominen

-----Original Message-----
From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jan Schermer
Sent: 7. syyskuuta 2015 11:44
To: Christian Balzer
Cc: ceph-users; Межов Игорь Александрович
Subject: Re: which SSD / experiences with Samsung 843T vs. Intel s3700

Re: Samsungs - I feel some of you are mixing and confusing different Samsung drives.

There is a DC line of Samsung drives meant for DataCenter use. Those have EVO (write once read many) and PRO (write mostly) variants.
You don't want to go anywhere near the EVO line with Ceph.
Then there are "regular" EVO and PRO drives - they are not meant for server use so don't use them.

The main difference is that the "DC" line should provide reliable and stable performance over time, no surprises, while the desktop drives can just pause and perform garbage collection and have completely different cache setup. If you torture desktop drive hard enough it will protect itself (slow down to a crawl).

So the only usable drivess for us are "DC PRO" and nothing else.

Jan

> On 05 Sep 2015, at 04:36, Christian Balzer <chibi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 22:37:06 +0000 Межов Игорь Александрович wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> Have worked with Intel DC S3700 200Gb. Due to budget restrictions, one
>>
>> ssd hosts a system volume and 1:12 OSD journals. 6 nodes, 120Tb raw
>> space.
>>
> Meaning you're limited to 360MB/s writes per node at best.
> But yes, I do understand budget constraints. ^o^
>
>> Cluster serves as RBD storage for ~100VM.
>>
>>
>> Not a  single failure per year - all devices are healthy.
>>
>> The remainig resource (by smart) is ~92%.
>>
> I use 1:2 or 1:3 journals and haven't made any dent into my 200GB S3700
> yet.
>
>>
>> Now we're try to use DC S3710 for journals.
>
> As I wrote a few days ago, unless you go for the 400GB version the the
> 200GB S3710 is actually slower (for journal purposes) than the 3700, as
> sequential write speed is the key factor here.
>
> Christian
> --
> Christian Balzer        Network/Systems Engineer
> chibi@xxxxxxx         Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications
> http://www.gol.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



--

Andrija Panić
_______________________________________________
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

[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux