12 ms·
That’s debatable when you consider the performance you get from Pure. Our X20 which is on the small end, with only 10 drives can easily do hundreds of thousand
by SteveNuts 4y ago
That’s debatable when you consider the performance you get from Pure.
Our X20 which is on the small end, with only 10 drives can easily do hundreds of thousands of IOPs, supporting over 1000 VMs and a high performance ERP solution.
The whole thing costs us about 50k a year. On an AWS/GCP that would cost a lot, lot more.
- riku_iki 4y ago> hundreds of thousands of IOPs that's like number for consumer grade ssd which costs $100?
- SteveNuts 4y agoSure, try running a thousand VMs on it though (which is an extremely random workload). A single sequential test at an optimal byte size benchmark for a consumer SSD is not representative of a real workload these arrays would see. Doing so is a lot more complex and intensive than what a single consumer grade SSD can handle. My point was just that if you wanted to get dedicated IOPs on AWS to match what you get with modern SANs, it’ll cost you far more.
- riku_iki 4y agoit is random 4k iops: https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/711085i0072733DF2FDB712/image-size/large?v=v2&px=999 https://eu.community.samsung.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-i... I tend to think your number for PS is likely off.
- SteveNuts 4y agoIn what way? It can do more or less?
- riku_iki 4y agolikely much more: scale with ssd speed and number of disks. Also, I am not sure how it will stack up against some cloud instance with bunch of ssd under software raid.
- SteveNuts 4y agoI agree that if you ran a synthetic benchmark against a brand new pure x20 with 10 NVME drives you'd see astronomical numbers for iops. That is absolutely not representative of a real workload of mixed reads and writes, different block sizes, potentially different queue depths, all coming in on hundreds or maybe thousands of different volumes. A single consumer Samsung SSD would hilariously crumble under a real workload, it will NOT deliver hundreds of thousands of IOPs in that environment. Your benchmark screenshot is the equivalent of showing your pickup truck can do burnouts in the parking lot, and extrapolating that to think it could keep up with a Ferrari on the Nurburgring.
- riku_iki 4y ago> That is absolutely not representative of a real workload of mixed reads and writes, different block sizes, potentially different queue depths, all coming in on hundreds or maybe thousands of different volumes. if you see bottleneck there, it could be that actual SSD speed is maybe irrelevant in your case since upstream software is not optimized.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago100% Read or 100% Write are as far from the real workload as it can get. The only exception would be backups read/restore. Also 1GB test file is often fits in the SSD's RAM cache. Get iometer, 50R/50W%, blocks from 512 to 16k, at least half the size of the storage. Then you would see the real performance. NB if you have random read way below the random write means you are measuring anything but the storage performance.
- riku_iki 4y agoI tried CrystalMark for my desktop SSD with 64GB 4k 50R/50W and got 134K, mostly I think because it has 400K read and 130K write, so writes are bottleneck. Sorry, lazy to learn how to use iometer, but you probably have SSD too and can report your results.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoNO U? Okay, not a problem: https://imgur.com/a/teoPGrz https://imgur.com/a/teoPGrz Real world performance[+Mix], Read&Write[+Mix] One is Fujitsu DX200 S4 SSD SAN, other is HFM256GDJTNG-8310A. Can you guess which is where?
- riku_iki 4y agoyou have q1t1 only.
- justsomehnguy 4y agoyou have no screenshot.
- riku_iki 4y agoI don't intend to prove anything to you ), but I confident you can set q16t16 and will get much better results.
- jlokier 4y agoI get 2 to 2.5 million IOPS for 4k random-reads on my personal server. Running Linux LVM software RAID over 3 x Samsung NVMe SSDs. That's not a read-write measurement, but it's a satisfying number for a not particularly high end server. (I use it for a side project's database engine experiments. That level of IOPS supports a very high random query rate.)
- dilyevsky 4y agoYes if you’re treading io1/2 territory it might be less expensive than cloud. Most people seem pretty happy with dogshit gp2/3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- SteveNuts 4y agoExactly.
- briffle 4y agoAlso compared to EMC storage. I haven't used since 2015, but they were very, very proud of their storage tools.
- Kon-Peki 4y agoWe switched from EMC to PS for our on-prem stuff about 5 or 6 years ago. I sat in on some of the RFP process. PS was basically the same price for a vastly superior offering. You had to make a leap of faith, though, that PS would survive as a company. Now there’s no doubt, so they probably have more pricing power. And EMC most likely has an offering that competes with the performance (or at least as close as they can get). Back then it was flash vs spinning disks. We do most of our stuff in the cloud, BTW, and PS is faster for cheaper, by a wide margin. But we’re not going to bring that compute back (I’d like to). One thing I remember was them being very open and direct, and they wanted to know a lot of heuristics about our data so they could give an accurate estimate about speed and dedup. Which was really close to the reality. Oh, and we’re using one of their devices for an Itanium OpenVMS cluster, it works like a charm. Try getting a startup to support that kind of setup these days, lol