> BTW, you asked about Samsung parts earlier. We are running these > SM863's in a block storage cluster: > > Model Family: Samsung based SSDs > Device Model: SAMSUNG MZ7KM240HAGR-0E005 > Firmware Version: GXM1003Q > > > 177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 094 094 005 Pre-fail > Always - 2195 > > The problem is that I don't know how to see how many writes have gone > through these drives. > > But maybe they're EOL anyway? > > Cheers, Dan
I have SM863a 1.9T’s in an all SSD pool. Model Family: Samsung based SSDs Device Model: SAMSUNG MZ7KM1T9HMJP-00005 The easiest way to read the number of ‘drive writes’ is the WLC/177 attribute. Where ‘Value’ is going to be normalized value of percentage used (out of 100%) counting down, and the ‘raw value’ is going to be your actual Program/Erase Cycles average value, aka your drive writes. > ID# ATTRIBUTE_NAME FLAG VALUE WORST THRESH TYPE UPDATED > WHEN_FAILED RAW_VALUE > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age Always > - 1758 > 177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 099 099 005 Pre-fail Always > - 7 So in my case, for this drive in question, the average of all the NAND has been fully written 7 times. The 1.9T SM863 is rated at 12.32 PBW, with a warranty period of 5 years, so ~3.6 DWPD, or ~6,500 drive writes for the total life of the drive. Now your drive shows 2,195 PE Cycles, which would be about 33% of the total PE cycles its rated for. I’m guessing that some of the NAND may have higher PE cycles than others, and the raw value reported may be the max value, rather than the average. Intel reports the min/avg/max on their drives using isdct. > $ sudo isdct show -smart ad -intelssd 0 > > - SMART Attributes PHMD_400AGN - > - AD - > AverageEraseCycles : 256 > Description : Wear Leveling Count > ID : AD > MaximumEraseCycles : 327 > MinimumEraseCycles : 188 > Normalized : 98 > Raw : 1099533058236 This is a P3700, one of the oldest in use. So this one has seen ~2% of its life expectancy usage, where some NAND has seen 75% more PE cycles than others. Would be curious what the raw value for Samsung is reporting, but thats an easy way to gauge drive writes. Reed > On May 18, 2017, at 3:30 AM, Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:11 AM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com > <mailto:ch...@gol.com>> wrote: >> On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:02:06 -0700 Ben Hines wrote: >> >>> Well, ceph journals are of course going away with the imminent bluestore. >> Not really, in many senses. >> > > But we should expect far fewer writes to pass through the RocksDB and > its WAL, right? So perhaps lower endurance flash will be usable. > > BTW, you asked about Samsung parts earlier. We are running these > SM863's in a block storage cluster: > > Model Family: Samsung based SSDs > Device Model: SAMSUNG MZ7KM240HAGR-0E005 > Firmware Version: GXM1003Q > > 9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 098 098 000 Old_age > Always - 9971 > 177 Wear_Leveling_Count 0x0013 094 094 005 Pre-fail > Always - 2195 > 241 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age > Always - 701300549904 > 242 Total_LBAs_Read 0x0032 099 099 000 Old_age > Always - 20421265 > 251 NAND_Writes 0x0032 100 100 000 Old_age > Always - 1148921417736 > > The problem is that I don't know how to see how many writes have gone > through these drives. > Total_LBAs_Written appears to be bogus -- it's based on time. It > matches exactly the 3.6DWPD spec'd for that model: > 3.6*240GB*9971 hours = 358.95TB > 701300549904 LBAs * 512Bytes/LBA = 359.06TB > > If we trust Wear_Leveling_Count then we're only dropping 6% in a year > -- these should be good. > > But maybe they're EOL anyway? > > Cheers, Dan > >>> Are small SSDs still useful for something with Bluestore? >>> >> Of course, the WAL and other bits for the rocksdb, read up on it. >> >> On top of that is the potential to improve things further with things >> like bcache. >> >>> For speccing out a cluster today that is a many 6+ months away from being >>> required, which I am going to be doing, i was thinking all-SSD would be the >>> way to go. (or is all-spinner performant with Bluestore?) Too early to make >>> that call? >>> >> Your call and funeral with regards to all spinners (depending on your >> needs). >> Bluestore at the very best of circumstances could double your IOPS, but >> there are other factors at play and most people who NEED SSD journals now >> would want something with SSDs in Bluestore as well. >> >> If you're planning to actually deploy a (entirely) Bluestore cluster in >> production with mission critical data before next year, you're a lot >> braver than me. >> An early adoption scheme with Bluestore nodes being in their own failure >> domain (rack) would be the best I could see myself doing in my generic >> cluster. >> For the 2 mission critical production clusters, they are (will be) frozen >> most likely. >> >> Christian >> >>> -Ben >>> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Christian Balzer <ch...@gol.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> On Wed, 17 May 2017 11:28:17 +0200 Eneko Lacunza wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Nick, >>>>> >>>>> El 17/05/17 a las 11:12, Nick Fisk escribió: >>>>>> There seems to be a shift in enterprise SSD products to larger less >>>> write intensive products and generally costing more than what >>>>>> the existing P/S 3600/3700 ranges were. For example the new Intel NVME >>>> P4600 range seems to start at 2TB. Although I mention Intel >>>>>> products, this seems to be the general outlook across all >>>> manufacturers. This presents some problems for acquiring SSD's for Ceph >>>>>> journal/WAL use if your cluster is largely write only and wouldn't >>>> benefit from using the extra capacity brought by these SSD's to >>>>>> use as cache. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is anybody in the same situation and is struggling to find good P3700 >>>> 400G replacements? >>>>>> >>>>> We usually build tiny ceph clusters, with 1 gbit network and S3610/S3710 >>>>> 200GB SSDs for journals. We have been experiencing supply problems for >>>>> those disks lately, although it seems that 400GB disks are available, at >>>>> least for now. >>>>> >>>> This. Very much THIS. >>>> >>>> We're trying to get 200 or 400 or even 800GB DC S3710 or S3610s here >>>> recently with zero success. >>>> And I'm believing our vendor for a change that it's not their fault. >>>> >>>> What seems to be happening (no official confirmation, but it makes all the >>>> sense in the world to me) is this: >>>> >>>> Intel is trying to switch to 3DNAND (like they did with the 3520s), but >>>> while not having officially EOL'ed the 3(6/7)10s also allowed the supply >>>> to run dry. >>>> >>>> Which of course is not a smart move, because now people are massively >>>> forced to look for alternatives and if they work unlikely to come back. >>>> >>>> I'm looking at oversized Samsungs (base model equivalent to 3610s) and am >>>> following this thread for other alternatives. >>>> >>>> Christian >>>> -- >>>> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >>>> ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications >>>> http://www.gol.com/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Christian Balzer Network/Systems Engineer >> ch...@gol.com Global OnLine Japan/Rakuten Communications >> http://www.gol.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 <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
