[brokentone]

This article seems to have a trove of interesting data, but struggles to generalize many conclusions out of it.

[wyldfire]

I think that's because it's a thinly veiled advertisement.

[tru_pablo]

I'm the author. We wanted to showcase some scenarios and that's it.

I would love to hear any suggestions of what else we can gather and report.

[brokentone]

Sure... so, showing "here is a weird disk pattern -- they were running X on top of it -- consider not running X on SSD" with a sampleset of 1 is a logical fallacy and kinda a bizarre post.

For small samplesets, going deep to understand unnecessary writes, tuning the clients and showing less SSD wear after tuning would be interesting. Or, assuming you have more than 1 client of each of these situations aggregating the data to show patterns would be far more useful. As has been mentioned elsewhere, for inspiration, Backblaze has really nice posts analyzing their device wear.

[tru_pablo]

Thanks. That makes sense.

But while we do have a lot of clients, I really think that all of their setups are unique in some way. So starting from that we didn't find more Redises on ceph dumping a lot.

> tuning the clients and showing less SSD wear after tuning would be interesting. Is just not an option for us, as we only do monitoring and don't have any ways of tuning.