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

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

[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.
 
 * Redundant (Multi-)Gbit NICs, with additional NICs depending on the preferred
   storage technology and cluster setup.
-- 
2.39.2

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

[Fiona Ebner]

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.

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

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

[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 ;)
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.

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

[Stefan Sterz]

On Wed Mar 20, 2024 at 10:49 AM CET, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

How about:

Enterprise SSDs with good performance are recommended.
Power-Loss-Protection (PLP) support can help identify such disks. Using
consumer SSDs is discouraged

> >
> >>   * Redundant (Multi-)Gbit NICs, with additional NICs depending on the preferred
> >>     storage technology and cluster setup.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel

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

[Fiona Ebner]

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.

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

[Maximiliano Sandoval]

Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> writes:

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

Neither consumer or enterprise grade disks are super well defined, why
not just discourage disks without PLP.

--
Maximiliano

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

[Thomas Lamprecht]

(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.

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

[Aaron Lauterer]

v2 is on the list
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-March/062296.html

On  2024-03-20  09:56, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> 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.
>   
>   * Redundant (Multi-)Gbit NICs, with additional NICs depending on the preferred
>     storage technology and cluster setup.

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

[Aaron Lauterer]

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.

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

[Thomas Lamprecht]

Am 20/03/2024 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(+)
> 
>

applied this one, thanks!

It's correct and avoids duplicate use of "recommend"