From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 BF2FCBA7B5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:17 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A8146DBE1
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:17 +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 11:02:13 +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 4A55A468D7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:13 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b9afa5ca-8c99-4d3d-9c9d-be367efb20dc@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@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>
 <a8ccc082-05ba-44d9-88ad-a0884dc1ac9f@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <a8ccc082-05ba-44d9-88ad-a0884dc1ac9f@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.069 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 10:02:17 -0000



Am 20.03.24 um 10:49 schrieb Aaron Lauterer:
> 
> 
> 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 ;)

Oh, I see. Didn't think about that :)

> 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.
> 

IMHO, it's still succinct enough. But you could also go for "avoid
consumer grade SSDs, whose use is discouraged."

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