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 <[email protected]> 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/ > > <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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > <http://wiki.ceph.org/> and there was nothing on this. > > -- > Eino Tuominen > > -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-users [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jan Schermer > Sent: 7. syyskuuta 2015 11:44 > To: Christian Balzer > Cc: ceph-users; Межов Игорь Александрович > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] 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 <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Global OnLine Japan/Fusion > > Communications > > http://www.gol.com/ <http://www.gol.com/> > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> > > > > -- > > Andrija Panić > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
