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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4484BAB88 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:06:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9E36C19F6E for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:06:27 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:06:23 +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 3947840B01 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:06:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <330acee6-96d4-4868-bd35-893f14ac3e7b@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:06:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner , Aaron Lauterer References: <20240320085621.38773-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.054 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:06:57 -0000 (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.