Agreed. I think oh …. maybe 15-20 years ago there was often a wider difference between SAS and SATA drives, but with modern queuing etc. my sense is that there is less of an advantage. Seek and rotational latency I suspect dwarf interface differences wrt performance. The HBA may be a bigger bottleneck (and way more trouble). 500 GB NVMe seems like a lot per HDD, are you using that as WAL+DB with RGW, or as dmcache or something? Depending on your constraints, QLC flash might be more competitive than you think ;) — aad > I suspect the behavior of the controller and the behavior of the drive firmware will end up mattering more than SAS vs SATA. As always it's best if you can test it first before committing to buying a pile of them. Historically I have seen SATA drives that have performed well as far as HDDs go though. > > > Mark > > On 6/3/21 4:25 PM, Dave Hall wrote: >> Hello, >> >> We're planning another batch of OSD nodes for our cluster. Our prior nodes >> have been 8 x 12TB SAS drives plus 500GB NVMe per HDD. Due to market >> circumstances and the shortage of drives those 12TB SAS drives are in short >> supply. >> >> Our integrator has offered an option of 8 x 14TB SATA drives (still >> Enterprise). For Ceph, will the switch to SATA carry a performance >> difference that I should be concerned about? >> >> Thanks. >> >> -Dave >> >> -- >> Dave Hall >> Binghamton University >> kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx >> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |