[PVE-User] SSD Performance test

Michael Rasmussen mir at miras.org
Tue Sep 17 15:06:14 CEST 2013


No more risk than with ext3. Ext3 also uses barrier=0 as default option.

Eneko Lacunza <elacunza at binovo.es> wrote:
>Hi Michale,
>
>That would risk the data in case of a power failure doesn't it? (yes, 
>server is UPS backed... :)  )
>
>
>On 17/09/13 12:38, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
>> Also barrier=0
>>
>> Marco Gabriel - inett GmbH <mgabriel at inett.de> wrote:
>>
>>     For SSDs you should set the I/O scheduler to "NOOP". Proxmox uses
>Deadline by default, which is good for spinning disks, but not for
>SSDs.
>>
>>     Examples (ssd is sdb):
>>
>>     Get currently used scheduler:
>>     cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
>>     noop anticipatory [deadline] cfq
>>
>>     Set scheduler:
>>     echo noop > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
>>
>>     best regards,
>>     Marco
>>
>>
>>     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>     Von: pve-user-bounces at pve.proxmox.com
>[mailto:pve-user-bounces at pve.proxmox.com] Im Auftrag von Eneko Lacunza
>>     Gesendet: Dienstag, 17. September 2013 12:12
>>     An: pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>>     Betreff: [PVE-User] SSD Performance test
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     I'm doing some tests with a Intel SSD 320 300GB disk. This is a 3
>Gbps disk with max ratings of R/W 270/205 MB/s and 39500/23000-400
>IOPS.
>>
>>     The disk is attached to a Dell PERC H200 (LSI SAS2008) RAID
>controller, no raid, no logical
>>     volume, no cache and is mounted as "ext4
>(rw,relatime,barrier=1,data=ordered)"
>>
>>     root at butroe:~# pveperf /srv/storage-local-ssd/
>>     CPU BOGOMIPS:      36176.88
>>     REGEX/SECOND:      761809
>>     HD SIZE:           275.08 GB (/dev/sdc)
>>     BUFFERED READS:    211.87 MB/sec
>>     AVERAGE SEEK TIME: 0.23 ms
>>     FSYNCS/SECOND:     1373.42
>>     DNS EXT:           157.35 ms
>>
>>     I was expecting a better Fsync/second value, having seen on this
>list much better values with spinning disk RAIDs and taking into
>account this drive's IOPS rating.
>>
>>     What do you think? Maybe it's the lack of a controller write
>cache what is hurting the fsyncs and the value is good with a H200
>controller?
>>
>>     Thanks
>>     Eneko
>>
>>     --
>>     Zuzendari Teknikoa / Director Técnico
>>     Binovo IT Human Project, S.L.
>>     Telf. 943575997
>>     943493611
>>     Astigarraga bidea 2, planta 6 dcha., ofi. 3-2; 20180 Oiartzun
>(Gipuzkoa)www.binovo.es  <http://www.binovo.es>
>>
>>    
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     pve-user mailing list
>>     pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>>     http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>>
>>    
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     pve-user mailing list
>>     pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>>     http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>>
>>     
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. 
>
>
>-- 
>Zuzendari Teknikoa / Director Técnico
>Binovo IT Human Project, S.L.
>Telf. 943575997
>       943493611
>Astigarraga bidea 2, planta 6 dcha., ofi. 3-2; 20180 Oiartzun
>(Gipuzkoa)
>www.binovo.es
>
>
>
>!DSPAM:52383b19185291269411916!
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>pve-user mailing list
>pve-user at pve.proxmox.com
>http://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user
>
>
>!DSPAM:52383b19185291269411916!

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pve.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/attachments/20130917/15722f50/attachment-0015.html>


More information about the pve-user mailing list