linux-ext4 - Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:23:33 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Spelic <spelic@...ftmail.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

On 6/19/12 9:19 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
>>
>> With thin provisioning you'll get totally different file system
>> layout than on fully provisioned disk as you push more and more
>> writes to your drive. This unfortunately has great impact on
>> performance since file systems usually have a lot of optimization on
>> where to put data/metadata on the drive and how to read them.
>> However in case of thinly provisioned storage those optimization
>> would not help. And yes, you just have to expect lower performance
>> with dm-thin from the file system on top of it. It is not and it
>> will never be ideal solution for workloads where you expect the best
>> performance.
> 
> One of the things which would be nice to be able to easily set up is a
> configuration where we get the benefits of thin provisioning with
> respect to snapshost, but where the underlying block device used by
> the file system is contiguous.  That is, it would be really useful to
> *not* use thin provisioning for the underlying file system, but to use
> thin provisioned snapshots.  That way we only pay the thinp
> performance penalty for the snapshots, and not for normal file system
> operations.  This is something that would be very useful both for ext4
> and xfs.

I agree, and have asked for exactly the same thing... though I have no
idea how hard it is to disentangle allocation-aware snapshots from thing
provisioned storage.

-Eric
--
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