So basically it does not matter unless I want to have that split up.
Thanks for all the answers.
I am still lobbying to phase out SATA SSDs and replace them with NVME
disks. :)
Am Mi., 28. Juni 2023 um 18:14 Uhr schrieb Anthony D'Atri <
a...@dreamsnake.net>:
> Even when you factor in density,
Even when you factor in density, iops, and the cost of an HBA?
SAS is mostly dead, manufacturers are beginning to drop SATA from their
roadmaps.
> On Jun 28, 2023, at 10:24 AM, Marc wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> What would we use instead? SATA / SAS that are progressively withering
>> in the
>
> What would we use instead? SATA / SAS that are progressively withering
> in the market, less performance for the same money? Why pay extra for an
> HBA just to use legacy media?
I am still buying sas/sata ssd's, these are for me still ~half price of the
nvme equivalent.
That page has mixed info.
What would we use instead? SATA / SAS that are progressively withering in the
market, less performance for the same money? Why pay extra for an HBA just to
use legacy media?
You can use NVMe for WAL+DB, with more complexity. You’ll get faster metadata
and lower
> Hi,
> is it a problem that the device class for all my disks is SSD even all
> of
> these disks are NVME disks? If it is just a classification for ceph, so
> I
> can have pools on SSDs and NVMEs separated I don't care. But maybe ceph
> handles NVME disks differently internally?
>
I am not
On 6/28/23 14:03, Boris Behrens wrote:
is it a problem that the device class for all my disks is SSD even all of
these disks are NVME disks? If it is just a classification for ceph, so I
can have pools on SSDs and NVMEs separated I don't care. But maybe ceph
handles NVME disks differently
