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 >> kdh...@binghamton.edu >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io >> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
