[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ceph-users
Subject:    [ceph-users] Issue with journal on another drive
From:       j.david.lists () gmail ! com (J David)
Date:       2015-09-30 15:08:52
Message-ID: CABXB=RRjTiK9pe8-Qz0UJ1QgHp1dGVSVO4pJb=DTLomp0x6Byg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:32 AM, Jiri Kanicky <j at ganomi.com> wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. In this case I am considering to create separate
> partitions for each disk on the SSD drive. Would be good to know what is the
> performance difference, because creating partitions is kind of waste of
> space.

It may be worth pointing out with SSD's as journals that "wasted
space" is not necessarily a bad thing.  First, unless you buy tiny
SSDs, which generally have poorer performance characteristics due to
fewer chips, you will be limited by IOPs and latency, not available
space.  Second, due to SSD wear leveling algorithms, any wasted/unused
space that never gets accessed translates directly into longer life
and that is no bad thing.


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jan Schermer <jan at schermer.cz> wrote:
> I have some experience with Kingstons - which model do you plan to use?
>
> Shorter version: don't use Kingstons. For anything. Ever.

The Kingston SSDNow E100 series are the only Kingston products to ever
pass our internal qualifications, and appear to be pretty decent.
That said, our production Ceph clusters are all Intel all the time.
SSD vendors that are not Intel pretty much exist for the sole purpose
of keeping Intel honest.

Thanks!

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]