3 ms·
> (a bit old, but still very performant to handle ~900 VMs) I am bit confused how random 4k access is relevant to your task, it should be more like 1MB seq a
by riku_iki 4y ago
> (a bit old, but still very performant to handle ~900 VMs)
I am bit confused how random 4k access is relevant to your task, it should be more like 1MB seq access likely.
My everyday task is tuning heavy data processing pipeline, and I am trying hard to achieve those q16t16.
> I intended to show you the difference between a single NVMe drive and a SSD SAN
and why you have such intention? It is obvious there is a difference.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago> how random 4k access is relevant to your task Sorry? 900 VMs equals 100% full random access. There is no sequential access there, just as I said in my first comment. > It is obvious there is a difference Because of your comment[0]. This comment[1] pretty much summarized what I said in a more eloquent way. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35061337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35061337 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35064282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35064282
- riku_iki 4y ago> Sorry? 900 VMs equals 100% full random access. There is no sequential access there, just as I said in my first comment. it depends on workload, if they do most of the work in RAM, and most of fs traffic is snapshoting and restoring from snapshots, then you will get 99% io seq traffic. If they do some non-trivial fs operations, then you will get q16t16 io traffic. It is very unlikely you will get q1t1 random. > Because of your comment[0]. > This comment[1] pretty much summarized what I said in a more eloquent way. In my view you are jumping from topic (single ssd vs nas) to another topic (your speculations about benchmark not representing real world scenarios) and then back.