Hey Erik, I actually ment that there is no point in using controllers with fast storage like SAS SSDs or NVMEs. They (the controllers) usually have 1-2 GB of RAM to buffer writes until the risc processor analyzes the requests and stacks them - thus JBOD (in 'replica 3' )makes much more sense for any kind of software defined storage (no matter Gluster, CEPH or Lustre). Of course, I could be wrong and I would be glad to read benchmark results on this topic. Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov На 22 юни 2020 г. 18:48:43 GMT+03:00, Erik Jacobson <erik.jacobson@xxxxxxx> написа: >> For NVMe/SSD - raid controller is pointless , so JBOD makes most >sense. > >I am game for an education lesson here. We're still using spinng drives >with big RAID caches but we keep discussing SSD in the context of RAID. >I >have read for many real-world workloads, RAID0 makes no sense with >modern SSDs. I get that part. But if your concern is reliability and >reducing the need to mess with Gluster to recover from a drive failure, >a RAID1 or or RADI10 (or some other with redundancy) would seem to at >least make sense from that perspective. > >Was your answer a performance answer? Or am I missing something about >RAIDs for redundancy and SSDs being a bad choice? > >Thanks again as always, > >Erik ________ Community Meeting Calendar: Schedule - Every 2nd and 4th Tuesday at 14:30 IST / 09:00 UTC Bridge: https://bluejeans.com/441850968 Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
