Our testing so far shows that it¹s a pretty good drive. We use it for the actual backing OSD, but the journal is on NVMe. The raw results indicate that it¹s a reasonable journal too, if you need to colocate, but you¹ll exhaust write performance pretty quickly depending on your workload. We also have them in large number. So far, so good.
Warren Wang On 7/8/16, 1:37 PM, "ceph-users on behalf of Carlos M. Perez" <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com on behalf of cpe...@cmpcs.com> wrote: >I posted a bunch of the more recent numbers in the specs. Had some down >time and had a bunch of SSD's lying around and just curious if any were >hidden gems... Interestingly, the Intel drives seem to not require the >write cache off, while other drives had to be "forced" off using the >hdparm -W0 /dev/sdx to make sure it was off. > >The machine we tested on is a Dell C2100 Dual x5560, 96GB ram, LSI2008 IT >mode controller > >intel Dc S3700 200GB > Model Number: INTEL SSDSC2BA200G3L > Firmware Revision: 5DV10265 > >1 - io=4131.2MB, bw=70504KB/s, iops=17626, runt= 60001msec >5 - io=9529.1MB, bw=162627KB/s, iops=40656, runt= 60001msec >10 - io=7130.5MB, bw=121684KB/s, iops=30421, runt= 60004msec > >Samsung SM863 > Model Number: SAMSUNG MZ7KM240HAGR-0E005 > Firmware Revision: GXM1003Q > >1 - io=2753.1MB, bw=47001KB/s, iops=11750, runt= 60000msec >5 - io=6248.8MB, bw=106643KB/s, iops=26660, runt= 60001msec >10 - io=8084.1MB, bw=137981KB/s, iops=34495, runt= 60001msec > >We decided to go with Intel model. The Samsung was impressive on the >higher end with multiple threads, but figured for most of our nodes with >4-6 OSD's the intel were a bit more proven and had better "light-medium" >load numbers. > >Carlos M. Perez >CMP Consulting Services >305-669-1515 > >-----Original Message----- >From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf Of >Dan van der Ster >Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:23 AM >To: Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> >Cc: ceph-users <ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Quick short survey which SSDs > >On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com> >wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> wrote: >>>> Unfamiliar: Samsung SM863 >>>> >>> You might want to read the thread here: >>> http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2016-February/007 >>> 871.html >>> >>> And google "ceph SM863". >>> >>> However I'm still waiting for somebody to confirm that these perform >>> (as one would expect from DC level SSDs) at full speed with sync >>> writes, which is the only important factor for journals. >> >> Tell me the fio options you're interested in and I'll run it right now. > >Using the options from Sebastien's blog I get: > >1 job: write: io=5863.3MB, bw=100065KB/s, iops=25016, runt= 60001msec >5 jobs: write: io=11967MB, bw=204230KB/s, iops=51057, runt= 60001msec >10 jobs: write: io=13760MB, bw=234829KB/s, iops=58707, runt= 60001msec > >Drive is model MZ7KM240 with firmware GXM1003Q. > >-- >Dan > > >[1] fio --filename=/dev/sdc --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k >--numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting >--name=journal-test _______________________________________________ >ceph-users mailing list >ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >_______________________________________________ >ceph-users mailing list >ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. *** Walmart Confidential *** _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
