[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 at 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.