From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4152BA797
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:50:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8C846D291
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:49:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:49:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B4C5D45BD0
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:49:53 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <a8ccc082-05ba-44d9-88ad-a0884dc1ac9f@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:49:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240320085621.38773-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
 <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.060 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] system-requirements: mention that SSDs
 with PLP should be used
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:50:24 -0000



On  2024-03-20  10:30, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 20.03.24 um 09:56 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   pve-system-requirements.adoc | 2 ++
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/pve-system-requirements.adoc b/pve-system-requirements.adoc
>> index bc3689d..4db5358 100644
>> --- a/pve-system-requirements.adoc
>> +++ b/pve-system-requirements.adoc
>> @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ Recommended System Requirements
>>     (BBU) or non-RAID for ZFS and Ceph. Neither ZFS nor Ceph are compatible with a
>>     hardware RAID controller.
>>   ** Shared and distributed storage is possible.
>> +** SSDs with Power-Loss-Protection (PLP) are recommended for good performance.
>> +  Using consumer SSDs is discouraged.
>>   
> 
> Having PLP might correlate with having good performance, but it's not
> the reason for good performance and good performance is not the reason
> you want PLP. It's just that both things are present in many enterprise
> SSDs, I'd mention that explicitly to avoid potential confusion.

When it comes to sync writes, it is definitely one reason for the good 
performance ;)
But yeah, let's think about it, what about the following?:


Enterprise grade SSDs are recommended for good performance. Checking for 
  Power-Loss-Protection (PLP) is a good way to avoid consumer grade 
SSDs. The use of consumer grade SSDs is discouraged.


Not too happy with that either, but phrasing it correctly and succinct 
is an art in itself.

> 
>>   * Redundant (Multi-)Gbit NICs, with additional NICs depending on the preferred
>>     storage technology and cluster setup.