fwiw, I am not confused about the various types of SSDs that Samsung offers. I knew exactly what I was getting when I ordered them. Based on their specs and my WAG on how much writing I would be doing they should have lasted about 6 years. Turns out my estimates were wrong, but even adjusting for actual use, I should have gotten about 18 months out of these drives, but I have them dying now at 9 months, with about half of their theoretical life left.
A list of hardware that is known to work well would be incredibly valuable to people getting started. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, nor does it have to provide all the guidance someone could want. A simple "these things have worked for others" would be sufficient. If nothing else, it will help people justify more expensive gear when their approval people say "X seems just as good and is cheaper, why can't we get that?". To that point, I think perhaps though something more important than a list of known "good" hardware would be a list of known "bad" hardware, and perhaps some more experience about what kind of write volume people should reasonably expect. Setting aside for a moment the early death problem the recent Samsung drives clearly have (I wonder if it's a side-effect of the "3D-NAND" tech?) I wouldn't have gotten them had my estimates told me I'd only get 18 months out of them. That would have also provided me the information I needed to justify the DC-class drives that cost four times as much to those that approve purchases. Without that critical piece of information, I'm left trying to justify thousands of extra dollars with only "because they're better". Also, I talked to a Samsung rep last week and he told me the DC 845 line has been discontinued. The DC-class drives from Samsung are now model pm863. They are theoretically on the market, but I've not been able to find them in stock anywhere. QH On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Jan Schermer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ > > 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]> 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 and there was nothing on this. >> >> -- >> Eino Tuominen >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ceph-users [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]> 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] Global OnLine Japan/Fusion Communications >> > http://www.gol.com/ >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
