From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 80CA9BC462 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:30:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5DC88BC15 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:29:57 +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 ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:29:56 +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 1EF1F42889 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:29:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <106c0a91-ffeb-4d5c-b305-025a96ef2450@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:29:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner References: <20240320085621.38773-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com> <330acee6-96d4-4868-bd35-893f14ac3e7b@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <330acee6-96d4-4868-bd35-893f14ac3e7b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.063 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2024 13:30:27 -0000 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 >>> --- >>> 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.