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 BF2FCBA7B5 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:02:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Aaron Lauterer , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240320085621.38773-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <64796975-cb0f-46c6-b58d-6f42029ffd44@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 >>> --- >>>   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.