Hi all, On 12/22/2015 01:55 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote: > On 22-12-15 13:43, Andrei Mikhailovsky wrote: >> Hello guys, >> >> Was wondering if anyone has done testing on Samsung PM863 120 GB version to see how it performs? IMHO the 480GB version seems like a waste for the journal as you only need to have a small disk size to fit 3-4 osd journals. Unless you get a far greater durability. >> > In that case I would look at the SM836 from Samsung. They are sold as > write-intensive SSDs. > > Wido > Today I received a small batch of SM863 (1.9TBs) disks. So maybe these testresults are helpfull for making a decision This is on an IBM X3550M4 with a MegaRaid SAS card (so not in jbod mode). Unfortunally I have no suitable JBOD card available at my test server so I'm stuck with the "RAID" layer in the HBA disabled drive cache, disabled controller cache --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 job ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=906536KB, aggrb=15108KB/s, minb=15108KB/s, maxb=15108KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=91/452978, merge=0/0, ticks=12/39032, in_queue=39016, util=65.04% 5 Jobs ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=6078.2MB, aggrb=103731KB/s, minb=103731KB/s, maxb=103731KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=179/3108541, merge=0/61, ticks=24/202796, in_queue=200900, util=99.81% 10 Jobs ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=9437.5MB, aggrb=161057KB/s, minb=161057KB/s, maxb=161057KB/s, mint=60003msec, maxt=60003msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=175/4827612, merge=0/228, ticks=24/452648, in_queue=451548, util=100.00% Enabled drive cache, disabled controller cache: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 job ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=1837.5MB, aggrb=31358KB/s, minb=31358KB/s, maxb=31358KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=91/940283, merge=0/0, ticks=4/40200, in_queue=40188, util=66.99% 5 jobs ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=6024.3MB, aggrb=102812KB/s, minb=102812KB/s, maxb=102812KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=179/3080690, merge=0/65, ticks=24/202100, in_queue=200364, util=99.81% 10 jobs ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=9524.2MB, aggrb=162536KB/s, minb=162536KB/s, maxb=162536KB/s, mint=60003msec, maxt=60003msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=164/4869333, merge=0/381, ticks=16/446660, in_queue=446080, util=100.00% Enabled drive cache, enabled controller cache: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1 job ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=1739.9MB, aggrb=29693KB/s, minb=29693KB/s, maxb=29693KB/s, mint=60000msec, maxt=60000msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=91/890287, merge=0/0, ticks=8/40096, in_queue=40044, util=66.75% 10 jobs ----------- Run status group 0 (all jobs): WRITE: io=9056.1MB, aggrb=154554KB/s, minb=154554KB/s, maxb=154554KB/s, mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=176/4630400, merge=0/312, ticks=24/454824, in_queue=453900, util=100.00% The dd way (with caches enabled) ------------------- # dd if=randfile of=/dev/sdd bs=4k count=1000000 oflag=direct,dsync 262144+0 records in 262144+0 records out 1073741824 bytes (1.1 GB) copied, 36.7559 s, 29.2 MB/s so thats about ~7K IOPS (single job of course) So this drive in this configuration is maxing out at about ~160 MB/s @ 39K IOPS , raising the blocksize from 4K to 32K raises throughput but lowers IOPS Amount of IOPS sounds reasonable for this quoted specs. Please note, this is a brand new disk, so probably IOPS will slow down a bit over time. Regards, Mart >> I am planning to replace my current journal ssds over the next month or so and would like to find out if there is an a good alternative to the Intel's 3700/3500 series. >> >> Thanks >> >> Andrei >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Wido den Hollander" <wido@xxxxxxxx> >>> To: "ceph-users" <ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Monday, 21 December, 2015 19:12:33 >>> Subject: Re: Intel S3710 400GB and Samsung PM863 480GB fio results >>> On 12/21/2015 05:30 PM, Lionel Bouton wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Sébastien Han just added the test results I reported for these SSDs on >>>> the following page : >>>> >>>> http://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-is-suitable-as-a-journal-device/ >>>> >>>> The table in the original post has the most important numbers and more >>>> details can be found in the comments. >>>> >>>> To sum things up, both have good performance (this isn't surprising for >>>> the S3710 but AFAIK this had to be confirmed for the PM863 and my >>>> company just purchased 2 of them just for these tests because they are >>>> the only "DC" SSDs available at one of our hosting providers). >>>> PM863 models are not designed for write-intensive applications and we >>>> have yet to see how they behave in the long run (in our case where PM863 >>>> endurance is a bit short, if I had a choice we would test SM863 models >>>> if they were available to us). >>>> >>>> So at least for the PM863 please remember that this report is just about >>>> the performance side (on fresh SSDs) which arguably is excellent for the >>>> price but this doesn't address other conditions to check (performance >>>> consistency over the long run, real-world write endurance including >>>> write amplification, large scale testing to detect potential firmware >>>> bugs, ...). >>>> >>> Interesting! I might be able to gain access to some PM836 3,84TB SSDs >>> later this week. >>> >>> I'll run the same tests if I can. Interesting to see how they perform. >>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Lionel >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Wido den Hollander >>> 42on B.V. >>> Ceph trainer and consultant >>> >>> Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 >>> Skype: contact42on >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 -- Mart van Santen Greenhost E: mart@xxxxxxxxxxxx T: +31 20 4890444 W: https://greenhost.nl A PGP signature can be attached to this e-mail, you need PGP software to verify it. My public key is available in keyserver(s) see: http://tinyurl.com/openpgp-manual PGP Fingerprint: CA85 EB11 2B70 042D AF66 B29A 6437 01A1 10A3 D3A5
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
