5 ms·
Sure, 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
by SteveNuts 4y ago
Sure, 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.)