From nobody Wed Apr 6 14:36:42 2022 X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BB861A9766C; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:36:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from egoitz@ramattack.net) Received: from cu1208c.smtpx.saremail.com (cu1208c.smtpx.saremail.com [195.16.148.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4KYRsp5Qf7z3hrB; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:36:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from egoitz@ramattack.net) Received: from www.saremail.com (unknown [194.30.0.183]) by sieve-smtp-backend02.sarenet.es (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B81CB60C64B; Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:36:42 +0200 (CEST) List-Id: Technical discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-hackers List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_99711a23deca8e31b3fd04d620ec3dd4" Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2022 16:36:42 +0200 From: egoitz@ramattack.net To: Rainer Duffner Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: Desperate with 870 QVO and ZFS In-Reply-To: <665236B1-8F61-4B0E-BD9B-7B501B8BD617@ultra-secure.de> References: <4e98275152e23141eae40dbe7ba5571f@ramattack.net> <665236B1-8F61-4B0E-BD9B-7B501B8BD617@ultra-secure.de> Message-ID: <0ef282aee34b441f1991334e2edbcaec@ramattack.net> X-Sender: egoitz@ramattack.net User-Agent: Saremail webmail X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4KYRsp5Qf7z3hrB X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=ramattack.net; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of egoitz@ramattack.net designates 195.16.148.183 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=egoitz@ramattack.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.79 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:195.16.148.0/24]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[ramattack.net,reject]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-fs,freebsd-hackers,freebsd-performance]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3262, ipnet:195.16.128.0/19, country:ES]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N --=_99711a23deca8e31b3fd04d620ec3dd4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Rainer! Thank you so much for your help :) :) Well I assume they are in a datacenter and should not be a power outage.... About dataset size... yes... our ones are big... they can be 3-4 TB easily each dataset..... We bought them, because as they are for mailboxes and mailboxes grow and grow.... for having space for hosting them... We knew they had some speed issues, but those speed issues, we thought (as Samsung explains in the QVO site) they started after exceeding the speeding buffer this disks have. We though that meanwhile you didn't exceed it's capacity (the capacity of the speeding buffer) no speed problem arises. Perhaps we were wrong?. Best regards, El 2022-04-06 14:56, Rainer Duffner escribió: >> Am 06.04.2022 um 13:15 schrieb egoitz@ramattack.net: >> I don't really know if, perhaps the QVO technology could be the guilty here.... because... they say are desktop computers disks... but later. > > Yeah, they are. > > Most likely, they don't have some sort of super-cap. > > A power-failure might totally toast the filesystem. > > These disks are - IMO - designed to accelerate read-operations. Their sustained write-performance is usually mediocre, at best. > > They might work well for small data-sets - because that is really written to some cache and the firmware just claims it's „written", but once the data-set becomes big enough, they are about as fast as a fast SATA-disk. > > https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-970-evo-plus-ssd,5608.html --=_99711a23deca8e31b3fd04d620ec3dd4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Hi Rainer!


Thank you so much for your help :) :)

Well I assume they are in a datacenter and should not be a power outage= =2E...

About dataset size... yes... our ones are big... they can be 3-4 TB easi= ly each dataset.....

We bought them, because as they are for mailboxes and mailboxes grow and= grow.... for having space for hosting them...

We knew they had some speed issues, but those speed issues, we thought (= as Samsung explains in the QVO site) they started after exceeding the speed= ing buffer this disks have. We though that meanwhile you didn't exceed it's= capacity (the capacity of the speeding buffer) no speed problem arises. Pe= rhaps we were wrong?.


Best regards,



El 2022-04-06 14:56, Rainer Duffner escribió:



Am 06.04.2022 um 13:15 schrieb egoitz@ramattack.net:

I don't really know if, perhaps the QVO technolo= gy could be the guilty here.... because... they say are desktop computers d= isks... but later.

 
Yeah, they are.
 
Most likely, they don't have some sort of super-cap.
 
A power-failure might totally toast the filesystem.
 
These disks are - IMO -  designed to accelerate read-operations= =2E Their sustained write-performance is usually mediocre, at best.
 
They might work well for small data-sets - because that is really writ= ten to some cache and the firmware just claims it's „written", but on= ce the data-set becomes big enough, they are about as fast as a fast SATA-d= isk.
 
 
 
 
--=_99711a23deca8e31b3fd04d620ec3dd4--