• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

SSD NVMe and SuSE

S

sachinh1980

n00b
Joined
Mar 17, 2022
Messages
2
Hello Experts,

We have Oracle Database Server with following configuration which we wish to Hardware-upgrade.

Hardware : Fujitsu Celcius R940n
Processor : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2637 v3 @ 3.50GHz
Harddisks : 4 x 1 TB SATA Disks (2 for OS in RAID-1 and 2 for Oracle Database also in RAID-1)
RAM : 128 GB
OS : SuSE Enterprise Server 12 (no updates)
Database : Oracle 11.2.0.4


We have been using it since 4 Years and recently I observed that one of the OS Disks is corrupt. Thanks to RAID-1 Level, the Server works without any problems.
But I think it is the good time to go for a replacement Hardware before things go crazy. So we are ordering a new hardware perhaps the better one.
The striking change in this new server will be SSD. So far we have been using only SATA disks and guess it is a good time to make this change, keeping future in mind.
I analysed few options and think of following Hardware-Upgrade. I request you all experts to give us your opinions/suggestions as we have no exprience with SSDs.

Hardware : This will be decided based on the availability and compatibility of below hardware components.
Processor : Same or any faster than ~ 3.5GHz Intel Processor which motherboard supports.
RAM : 128 GB or higher
OS : SuSE Enterprise Server 12 (-SP5)
Database : Oracle 11.2.0.4 (This version must be kept)
Harddisks : Option A> 2x 500 GB SATA3 SSD ; 2 x 1T SATA3 SSD or
Option B> 4 x 1TB Samsung 980 PRO PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2. (2280) Internal Solid State Drive (SSD)

I have read that Samsung 980 Pro ist the fastest available SSD currently but it also has Heat Problems. Is that true? If yes then what is the better alternative?

Secondly if it is possible to go for 4 x 1 PCIe NVMe SSDs as I am not sure if certain Motherboards exist which can provide this configuration. Or should I go for combination of SATA and SSD.
Or a combination of SATA3 SSD and NVMe M.2. ?

Another point which comes to my mind is compatibility of newest SSD NVMe technology with SuSE - 12. For applications we have to stick to SLES 12 and can not upgrade to SLES-15 but atleast
I should be allowed to upgrade SLES-12 SP5 in order to getting the driver for SSD NVMe.

So these are the major concerns and I am trying to figure out the solutions/Answers. I wish to avoid a situation where the hardware is purchased and now i can not boot SuSE OS with SSD. :(
Your valuable comments and suggestions are welcome.
Thanx in advance.

Regards,
Admin
 
Likely that you won't be able to boot from NVMe unless there's some sort of adequate bridge chipset on the card (you can search for that).

But even plain ole SSD will be a boost of 2-3x (or more) with insane increase in seeks.

Personally, I'd feel better if you were at SLES 15.

But would think plain ole SSD (non-NVMe) would be pretty safe. I use a 2TB EVO 870 myself (in addition to some 500G Micron M600's).

I run openSUSE 15.3 with a HP(proprietary?) bios support for it's NVMe on a card. If someone asked me to go way back to 14 or earlier, I'd feel it was a risk (even more so, since you said "no updates"). Oracle should do well on the traditional SSDs.

Trim support on unpatched 12?? Unknown.
 
This the exactly what I expected in return. Plain, to the point response. Thanks cjcox!!!
I too feel that booting can be a problem. Not sure what is bridge chipset but I will search it. As an administrator I have to give requirement/specifications for replacement server. Which PC Hardware model it provides, is not my concern. And if certain things do not run on it then its a Hardware-vendor's call lets say HP. But i still think, it will be trial and error case which I am not in favour of.
Safe bait will be as you said, to go for plain ole(??) SSD non -NVMe which normally have around 500 MB/s speed. Should be faster, compare to SATA Disks. Plus I would be going for higher RAM and CPU-Speed. So all in all the configuraiton will be faster. My intention was actually to go for fastest configration to earn browny points :) but Alas!!!
Another question here is, since OS and Database are on different disks, how about a combination of SATA and SSD? Like SATA disks for OS and SSD for Database or should I go for all SSD Option? Side question are there any motherboards which allow connecting 4 SSDs at the same time?
Thanx once again.
 
As I'm able, I've been replacing my old spinny disks with SSD. But right now, spinny disks rule on cost plus density. They are still useful.

We sort of hit a "wall" or at least a big thick mud patch with regards to making SSDs more affordable. The idea that they would eventually become competitive price wise hasn't quite materialized yet.

Now, I do think if a 12-16TB SSD came out that was less than $1000 USD, that would at least show that SSD can stand toe to toe density wise. Even if the cost is still a problem.

But today, spinny disks are cheaper, they aren't horrible in seq access, they are lousy in seeks (duh), but for a lot of workloads, they do the job just fine. And they deliver space.

But, with that said, there are platforms (like Apple) which use high fragmenting filesystems which really mandate SSD. Too soon for that? Not sure. (but if you're using something old of Apple and their new filesystem and wondering why it sucks.... now you know).

My Plex server uses 4 x 4TB external USB attached spinny disks. And I back those up to like 4 x 4TB external USB attached spinny disks on a different host. We'll know when SSD has truly made it when such things are replaced by all SSD. Doesn't make sense at all today though. But, I am interested in reputable SSD 4TB storage for $80-90 USD, feel free to point the way.
 
I'd probably try for 2x NVMe for the database and 2x SATA for the OS. You may or may not see an advantage from PCIe 4.0 such as the 980 Pro. A lot will depend on your workload. If it's very write-heavy, you might actually come out ahead by using 970 Pro's, as their write speed is constant no matter how much write data you throw at them. WD has a PCIe 4.0 drive that's competitive with the 980 Pro, and I imagine others are there as well by now. Don't fuss too much about minor differences in benchmarking; you'd have to find the benchmark that best matches your specific workload to get any real value out of it. Even SATA drives for the database will mop the floor with your existing hard drives.
 
980 pro has poor EXT4 performance. I highly recommend getting a different drive. Maybe something based on Phison E-18 controller?
 
pitingres said:
"Poor" compared to what? Source?

I'd probably run XFS on a database drive anyway.
Click to expand...
Our DBA says that ext4 performs better for Postgres than XFS. I have not done my own analysis. I also am skeptical about how ext4 performance could be considered "poor". Would think if ext4 sucks, so does NTFS.
 
What is the critical level this server has to be up? Any reason why you are not looking at Dell, HP or someone for a server, mainly for support purposes if this is a critical server?

If Oracle is like most DBs..

OS drive
Data drive
Logs Drive
TempDB Drive

Should all be separate for best performance ?
 
cjcox said:
Our DBA says that ext4 performs better for Postgres than XFS. I have not done my own analysis. I also am skeptical about how ext4 performance could be considered "poor". Would think if ext4 sucks, so does NTFS.
Click to expand...


Cant find much outside of this review, which on some other forums people question their actual testing methods
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=samsung-980-pro&num=2

But someone on reddit did some tests
https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/hpvxfe/benchmarking_ext4_on_lvm_vs_zfs_on_lvm_vs_zfs_on/
 
I own the 1TB 980 PRO and run Ubuntu 21.10 Ext4 and I had similar read write speeds as the phoronix review benchmarks. I swapped it for a Firecuda 530 1tb and I get close to 7100mb reads and 6000mb/s writes in Fio tests. With the Samsung 980 pro I got really slow writes like between 2000 to 3200 mb/s. In windows 10 or 11 980 Pro in Crystal Benchmark ran at it's rated speeds 7000mb reads and about 5000 mb/s on the writes. I was using the latest Samsung 980 pro firmware as well. My assumption is that it has something to do with how Samsung tuned their firmware.
 
I got some WD SN850 2tb coming in that I got on sale at Amazon. I'm going to test those but those seem to do alot better in linux according to the Phoronix review.
 
CyberJunk said:
I own the 1TB 980 PRO and run Ubuntu 21.10 Ext4 and I had similar read write speeds as the phoronix review benchmarks. I swapped it for a Firecuda 530 1tb and I get close to 7100mb reads and 6000mb/s writes in Fio tests. With the Samsung 980 pro I got really slow writes like between 2000 to 3200 mb/s. In windows 10 or 11 980 Pro in Crystal Benchmark ran at it's rated speeds 7000mb reads and about 5000 mb/s on the writes. I was using the latest Samsung 980 pro firmware as well. My assumption is that it has something to do with how Samsung tuned their firmware.
Click to expand...
Ya, def sounds like either a firmware or a driver in linux issue...to be that specific to that drive, curious if linux varieties use a samsung provided driver or just a generic one?
 
MrGuvernment said:
Ya, def sounds like either a firmware or a driver in linux issue...to be that specific to that drive, curious if linux varieties use a samsung provided driver or just a generic one?
Click to expand...
NVMe kernel code looks generic to me, at least in 5.16.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Ya, def sounds like either a firmware or a driver in linux issue...to be that specific to that drive, curious if linux varieties use a samsung provided driver or just a generic one?
Click to expand...
I think you use whatever is in the Linux kernel. I tested using 5.15.7
 
I got 2 WD SN850 2TB drives installed in Gigabyte Aorus Master X570S both running off the chipset. In crystal disk mark i get about 6300mb/s on read and 5200 mb/s on the writes iam hitting over 1 million read iops and about 725k on the write iops random. In my experience so far the SN850 seems to be the slightly faster drive over 980 pro but runs a bit warmer.
Linux performance very close to Windows performance on the read and writes using fio test and Gnome Disks benchmark

The WD SN850 2tb drives are cheaper currently than the Samsung 980 pro 2tb $252 vs $289 on amazon. I probably end up keeping these drives. Most drives running off the chipset only run at 6500mb/s reads and 3200mb/s on the writes max !!

I had problems running the WD SSD dashboard. It would load up and then the window would disappear. I'm not sure anyone else experienced this issue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top