Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs] system-requirements: mention that SSDs with PLP should be used

[Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>]

Should we stick with v1 or v2? V1 is definitely more strongly worded 
than v2.

v1:
+**·SSDs·with·Power-Loss-Protection·(PLP)·are·recommended·for·good·performance.
+··Using·consumer·SSDs·is·discouraged.

vs v2:

+**·Enterprise·grade·SSDs·are·recommended·for·good·performance.·Check·for·power
+··loss·protection·(PLP)·to·avoid·using·consumer-grade·SSDs,·which·are·not
+··recommended.

On  2024-03-21  09:06, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> (missed reply-all, so resending)
> 
> On 20/03/2024 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.
> 
> Disagree, PLP is the biggest reason for good performance compared to
> consumer SSDs and it's often the main reason people buy them, as one
> can make consumer SSDs safe without PLP, it just gets damn slow.