I tested and can recommend the Samsung 845 DC PRO (make sure it is DC PRO and not just "PRO" or "DC EVO"!). Those were very cheap but are out of stock at the moment (here). Faster than Intels, cheaper, and slightly different technology (3D V-NAND) which IMO makes them superior without needing many tricks to do its job.
Jan > On 13 Aug 2015, at 14:40, Voloshanenko Igor <igor.voloshane...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Tnx, Irek! Will try! > > but another question to all, which SSD good enough for CEPH now? > > I'm looking into S3500 240G (I have some S3500 120G which show great results. > Around 8x times better than Samsung) > > Possible you can give advice about other vendors/models with same or below > price level as S3500 240G? > > 2015-08-13 12:11 GMT+03:00 Irek Fasikhov <malm...@gmail.com > <mailto:malm...@gmail.com>>: > Hi, Igor. > Try to roll the patch here: > http://www.theirek.com/blog/2014/02/16/patch-dlia-raboty-s-enierghoniezavisimym-keshiem-ssd-diskov > > <http://www.theirek.com/blog/2014/02/16/patch-dlia-raboty-s-enierghoniezavisimym-keshiem-ssd-diskov> > > P.S. I am no longer tracks changes in this direction(kernel), because we use > already recommended SSD > > С уважением, Фасихов Ирек Нургаязович > Моб.: +79229045757 <tel:%2B79229045757> > > 2015-08-13 11:56 GMT+03:00 Voloshanenko Igor <igor.voloshane...@gmail.com > <mailto:igor.voloshane...@gmail.com>>: > So, after testing SSD (i wipe 1 SSD, and used it for tests) > > root@ix-s2:~# sudo fio --filename=/dev/sda --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write > --bs=4k --numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --gr[53/1800] > ting --name=journal-test > journal-test: (g=0): rw=write, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=sync, iodepth=1 > fio-2.1.3 > Starting 1 process > Jobs: 1 (f=1): [W] [100.0% done] [0KB/1152KB/0KB /s] [0/288/0 iops] [eta > 00m:00s] > journal-test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=2849460: Thu Aug 13 10:46:42 > 2015 > write: io=68972KB, bw=1149.6KB/s, iops=287, runt= 60001msec > clat (msec): min=2, max=15, avg= 3.48, stdev= 1.08 > lat (msec): min=2, max=15, avg= 3.48, stdev= 1.08 > clat percentiles (usec): > | 1.00th=[ 2704], 5.00th=[ 2800], 10.00th=[ 2864], 20.00th=[ 2928], > | 30.00th=[ 3024], 40.00th=[ 3088], 50.00th=[ 3280], 60.00th=[ 3408], > | 70.00th=[ 3504], 80.00th=[ 3728], 90.00th=[ 3856], 95.00th=[ 4016], > | 99.00th=[ 9024], 99.50th=[ 9280], 99.90th=[ 9792], 99.95th=[10048], > | 99.99th=[14912] > bw (KB /s): min= 1064, max= 1213, per=100.00%, avg=1150.07, stdev=34.31 > lat (msec) : 4=94.99%, 10=4.96%, 20=0.05% > cpu : usr=0.13%, sys=0.57%, ctx=17248, majf=0, minf=7 > IO depths : 1=100.0%, 2=0.0%, 4=0.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, >=64=0.0% > submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, > >=64=0.0% > complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, > >=64=0.0% > issued : total=r=0/w=17243/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0 > > Run status group 0 (all jobs): > WRITE: io=68972KB, aggrb=1149KB/s, minb=1149KB/s, maxb=1149KB/s, > mint=60001msec, maxt=60001msec > > Disk stats (read/write): > sda: ios=0/17224, merge=0/0, ticks=0/59584, in_queue=59576, util=99.30% > > So, it's pain... SSD do only 287 iops on 4K... 1,1 MB/s > > I try to change cache mode : > echo temporary write through > /sys/class/scsi_disk/2:0:0:0/cache_type > echo temporary write through > /sys/class/scsi_disk/3:0:0:0/cache_type > > no luck, still same shit results, also i found this article: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/20/264 <https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/20/264> > pointed to old very simple patch, which disable CMD_FLUSH > https://gist.github.com/TheCodeArtist/93dddcd6a21dc81414ba > <https://gist.github.com/TheCodeArtist/93dddcd6a21dc81414ba> > > Has everybody better ideas, how to improve this? (or disable CMD_FLUSH > without recompile kernel, i used ubuntu and 4.0.4 for now (4.x branch because > SSD 850 Pro have issue with NCQ TRIM< and before 4.0.4 this exception was not > included into libsata.c) > > 2015-08-12 19:17 GMT+03:00 Pieter Koorts <pieter.koo...@me.com > <mailto:pieter.koo...@me.com>>: > Hi Igor > > I suspect you have very much the same problem as me. > > https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg22260.html > <https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg22260.html> > > Basically Samsung drives (like many SATA SSD's) are very much hit and miss so > you will need to test them like described here to see if they are any good. > 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/> > > To give you an idea my average performance went from 11MB/s (with Samsung > SSD) to 30MB/s (without any SSD) on write performance. This is a very small > cluster. > > Pieter > > On Aug 12, 2015, at 04:33 PM, Voloshanenko Igor <igor.voloshane...@gmail.com > <mailto:igor.voloshane...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Hi all, we have setup CEPH cluster with 60 OSD (2 diff types) (5 nodes, 12 >> disks on each, 10 HDD, 2 SSD) >> >> Also we cover this with custom crushmap with 2 root leaf >> >> ID WEIGHT TYPE NAME UP/DOWN REWEIGHT PRIMARY-AFFINITY >> -100 5.00000 root ssd >> -102 1.00000 host ix-s2-ssd >> 2 1.00000 osd.2 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 9 1.00000 osd.9 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -103 1.00000 host ix-s3-ssd >> 3 1.00000 osd.3 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 7 1.00000 osd.7 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -104 1.00000 host ix-s5-ssd >> 1 1.00000 osd.1 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 6 1.00000 osd.6 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -105 1.00000 host ix-s6-ssd >> 4 1.00000 osd.4 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 8 1.00000 osd.8 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -106 1.00000 host ix-s7-ssd >> 0 1.00000 osd.0 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 5 1.00000 osd.5 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -1 5.00000 root platter >> -2 1.00000 host ix-s2-platter >> 13 1.00000 osd.13 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 17 1.00000 osd.17 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 21 1.00000 osd.21 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 27 1.00000 osd.27 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 32 1.00000 osd.32 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 37 1.00000 osd.37 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 44 1.00000 osd.44 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 48 1.00000 osd.48 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 55 1.00000 osd.55 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 59 1.00000 osd.59 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -3 1.00000 host ix-s3-platter >> 14 1.00000 osd.14 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 18 1.00000 osd.18 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 23 1.00000 osd.23 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 28 1.00000 osd.28 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 33 1.00000 osd.33 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 39 1.00000 osd.39 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 43 1.00000 osd.43 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 47 1.00000 osd.47 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 54 1.00000 osd.54 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 58 1.00000 osd.58 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -4 1.00000 host ix-s5-platter >> 11 1.00000 osd.11 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 16 1.00000 osd.16 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 22 1.00000 osd.22 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 26 1.00000 osd.26 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 31 1.00000 osd.31 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 36 1.00000 osd.36 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 41 1.00000 osd.41 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 46 1.00000 osd.46 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 51 1.00000 osd.51 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 56 1.00000 osd.56 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -5 1.00000 host ix-s6-platter >> 12 1.00000 osd.12 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 19 1.00000 osd.19 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 24 1.00000 osd.24 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 29 1.00000 osd.29 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 34 1.00000 osd.34 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 38 1.00000 osd.38 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 42 1.00000 osd.42 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 50 1.00000 osd.50 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 53 1.00000 osd.53 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 57 1.00000 osd.57 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> -6 1.00000 host ix-s7-platter >> 10 1.00000 osd.10 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 15 1.00000 osd.15 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 20 1.00000 osd.20 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 25 1.00000 osd.25 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 30 1.00000 osd.30 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 35 1.00000 osd.35 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 40 1.00000 osd.40 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 45 1.00000 osd.45 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 49 1.00000 osd.49 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> 52 1.00000 osd.52 up 1.00000 1.00000 >> >> >> Then create 2 pools, 1 on HDD (platters), 1 on SSD/ >> and put SSD pul in from of HDD pool (cache tier) >> >> now we receive very bad performance results from cluster. >> Even with rados bench we received very unstable performance with even zero >> speed. So it's create very big issues for our clients. >> >> I try to tune all possible values, including OSD, but still no luck. >> >> Also very unbelievble situation, when i do >> ceph tell... bench on SSD OSD - i receive about 20MB/s >> If for HDD - 67 MB/s... >> >> I don;t understand why cache pools which consist of SSD works so bad... We >> used Samsung 850 Pro 256 Gb as SSDs >> >> Can you guys give me advice please... >> >> Also very idiotic thing, when i set cache-mode to forward and try to >> flush-evict all object (not all object evicted, some busy (locked on KVM >> sides). but now i receive quite stable results for rados bench >> >> Total time run: 30.275871 >> Total writes made: 2076 >> Write size: 4194304 >> Bandwidth (MB/sec): 274.278 >> >> Stddev Bandwidth: 75.1445 >> Max bandwidth (MB/sec): 368 >> Min bandwidth (MB/sec): 0 >> Average Latency: 0.232892 >> Stddev Latency: 0.240356 >> Max latency: 2.01436 >> Min latency: 0.0716344 >> >> Without zeros, etc... So i don't understand how it's possible. >> >> Also interesting thing, when i disable overlay for pool, rados bench become >> around 70MB/s as for ordinary HDD, but in same time rados bench for SSD >> pool, which not used anymore show same bad results... >> >> So please, give me some direction to deeg... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-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
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
