[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yq1r4x3hfoo.fsf@sermon.lab.mkp.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:36:39 -0500
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Some interesting input from a flash manufacturer
>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> writes:
Ted> But min_io currently means the smallest size that we're allowed to
Ted> write, correct?
Without incurring a penalty, yes. That was conceived in the standards
with 4K sectors and RAID RMW in mind. But I think it would apply to SSDs
as well. Depending on how mkfs.* interpret the field, obviously.
Ted> And the flash page size could be 128k and 512 byte writes might be
Ted> perfectly OK; it's just that writes are more optimal at 128k, and
Ted> would be even more optimal at the erbase block size of 4 megs.
Yep. Just like in the RAID case where the writing the full stripe chunk
is better than just a logical block. And a full stripe is even better.
Ted> That's why I'm not sure it makes sense to use the existing fields,
Ted> since it will confuse file system utilities that are reading those
Ted> fields.
Happy to add new fields if it makes sense. But right now ATA ACS doesn't
even have anything corresponding to the SCSI fields that populate min_io
and opt_io.
--
Martin K. Petersen Oracle Linux Engineering
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists