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 109336330C for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:35:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 02ED27B4B for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:35:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from mxout03.lancloud.ru (mxout03.lancloud.ru [45.84.86.113]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B333D7B37 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2022 13:34:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from LanCloud DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mxout03.lancloud.ru 7C7B920EC9A4 Received: from LanCloud Received: from LanCloud Received: from LanCloud Received: from LanCloud Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:29:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Eneko Lacunza , pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <10232bf8-ad79-e262-9861-bcc88f3c1bb9@t8.ru> <094b0da0-94b9-3b0f-3358-78d8e51561de@binovo.es> <1f2ec805-8fe2-159a-4f59-2831a3110b89@t8.ru> <23cc8e89-9f08-9af1-8a35-eb786bf3993b@binovo.es> From: =?UTF-8?B?0KHQtdGA0LPQtdC5INCm0LDQsdC+0LvQvtCy?= In-Reply-To: <23cc8e89-9f08-9af1-8a35-eb786bf3993b@binovo.es> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - T_SPF_PERMERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (permerror) UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 0.001 Informational: message has unparseable relay lines URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, binovo.es] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] New Disk on one node of Cluster. X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:35:01 -0000 Hi Eneko, I make some test and found if one node remove from Cluster and restore the VM on it the VM disk performance is very well! I have some ideas to test other methods about performance. My question is: If I add to all nodes 2 or 1 ssd disks and move the *Ceph journal to SSD* disks my performance of VM and Ceph it will be better for virtual machines and? With ceph journal on ssd ceph working better and fast? Have someone such an experience move the Ceph journal to ssd? And what ssd disk with GB is enough for journal? Thank you. 16.02.2022 12:59, Eneko Lacunza пишет: > Hi Sergey, > > El 16/2/22 a las 10:54, Сергей Цаболов escribió: >> >>> What IOPS are you getting in your 4K tests? You won't get near >>> direct disk IOPS... >> I need to test the host disk or the VM disk ? > > If you're worried about VM performance, then test VM disks... :) > > Cheers > > Eneko Lacunza > Zuzendari teknikoa | Director técnico > Binovo IT Human Project > > Tel. +34 943 569 206 |https://www.binovo.es > Astigarragako Bidea, 2 - 2º izda. Oficina 10-11, 20180 Oiartzun > > https://www.youtube.com/user/CANALBINOVO > https://www.linkedin.com/company/37269706/ Sergey TS The best Regard _______________________________________________ pve-user mailing list pve-user@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user