Hi, I was wondering if anyone has the Intel DC S3700 in their rig used as ZIL that can share your finding/result.
I am in the process of testing Freenas 9 as datastore for ESXi using NFS (but open to iSCSI) and found that I need more IOPS and lower latency for Veeam replication and VM Change Block Tracking processing. Throughput is not important for me.
From my research here and other forums (BSD, Hard Forum, etc) I know and see in my testing that ZFS sync write and Esxi don't play nicely. I can disable sync write for NFS or use iSCSI with default sync=standard and see huge improvement in terms of throughput, IOPS, and latency but don't want the risk of data loss/corruption due to power outage. This rig will be in a co-location with redundant UPS so if fairly affordable ZIL (i.e. intel s3700) cannot help me get more IOPS, then sync disabled (or iSCSI) might be the more economical option. Plus this box is for Disaster Recovery situation and backup only anyway. Currently I am only getting around 300 IOPS on my temp test box (10K SAS disks in several mirror vdevs, 24GB RAM box) I need around 1000 IOPS for Veeam to process the VM's more quickly so my replication window would be smaller.
So, after researching for a suitable SSD for ZIL, the Intel DC S3700 is very popular but I don't see many people actually having it in their rig and confirm improvement. Also, the 100gb spec is much lower than the 200gb and most rave reviews are of the 200gb, but it doubles the price (~$510); and you are only going to use a few gig for ZIL which is kind of ridiculous. Anyway, I am going to get the 100GB version to test if it doesn't work I can always eat the 15% restocking fee.
I also saw the new enterprise Seagate 600 Pro which has super capacitors like the Intel S3700 and the performance is not bad. Anyone used these as ZIL?
On a slightly different note, so if I go with iSCSI with sync=standard (default config), that would be similar to NFS with sync=disable, then I am at risk of losing data and corruption due to power loss? If this is true, then if anyone who are not aware of this are at risk when using ESXi and FreeNAS with default iSCSI config? Then wouldn't this be a very bad default setup by FreeNAS and iXSystem?
What's better?
1) NFS with sync=disabled
or
2) iSCSI with sync=standard
My guess is both are at risk of corruption. Pick my poison?
I am in the process of testing Freenas 9 as datastore for ESXi using NFS (but open to iSCSI) and found that I need more IOPS and lower latency for Veeam replication and VM Change Block Tracking processing. Throughput is not important for me.
From my research here and other forums (BSD, Hard Forum, etc) I know and see in my testing that ZFS sync write and Esxi don't play nicely. I can disable sync write for NFS or use iSCSI with default sync=standard and see huge improvement in terms of throughput, IOPS, and latency but don't want the risk of data loss/corruption due to power outage. This rig will be in a co-location with redundant UPS so if fairly affordable ZIL (i.e. intel s3700) cannot help me get more IOPS, then sync disabled (or iSCSI) might be the more economical option. Plus this box is for Disaster Recovery situation and backup only anyway. Currently I am only getting around 300 IOPS on my temp test box (10K SAS disks in several mirror vdevs, 24GB RAM box) I need around 1000 IOPS for Veeam to process the VM's more quickly so my replication window would be smaller.
So, after researching for a suitable SSD for ZIL, the Intel DC S3700 is very popular but I don't see many people actually having it in their rig and confirm improvement. Also, the 100gb spec is much lower than the 200gb and most rave reviews are of the 200gb, but it doubles the price (~$510); and you are only going to use a few gig for ZIL which is kind of ridiculous. Anyway, I am going to get the 100GB version to test if it doesn't work I can always eat the 15% restocking fee.
I also saw the new enterprise Seagate 600 Pro which has super capacitors like the Intel S3700 and the performance is not bad. Anyone used these as ZIL?
On a slightly different note, so if I go with iSCSI with sync=standard (default config), that would be similar to NFS with sync=disable, then I am at risk of losing data and corruption due to power loss? If this is true, then if anyone who are not aware of this are at risk when using ESXi and FreeNAS with default iSCSI config? Then wouldn't this be a very bad default setup by FreeNAS and iXSystem?
What's better?
1) NFS with sync=disabled
or
2) iSCSI with sync=standard
My guess is both are at risk of corruption. Pick my poison?
