[sekh60]

Consumer SSDs are trash for sustained writes since they get their top speeds from cache and use slower NAND. Enterprise SSDs tend to have better write endurance, and faster NAND. I have a small Ceph cluster and as an example when I first bought SSDs for it I tried consumer Samsung 870 Evo's. They performed worse than spinning rust.

[wtallis]

Consumer SSDs don't really use slower NAND; the QLC vs TLC ratio might be higher for the consumer SSD market than the enterprise SSD market, but a consumer TLC drive is using the same speed of NAND as an enterprise TLC drive (and likewise for QLC drives).

Enterprise SSDs only really have significantly higher endurance if you're looking at the top market segments where a drive is configured with much more spare area than consumer drives (ie. where a 1TiB drive has 800GB usable capacity rather than 960GB or 1000GB). Most of the discrepancy in write endurance ratings between mainstream consumer and mainstream enterprise drives comes from their respective write endurance ratings being calculated according to different criteria, and from consumer SSDs being given low-ball endurance ratings so that they don't cannibalize sales of enterprise drives.

Your poor Ceph performance with Samsung consumer SATA SSDs wasn't due to the NAND, but to the lack of power loss protection on the consumer SSDs leading to poor sync write performance.

[menaerus]

If that had been true what you say then we wouldn't be able to saturate the PCIe 3.0 x4 bus with consumer NVMe SSD which we absolutely can. The biggest difference is in the durability as mentioned in the comment below.