[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200611302107.40418.jens.wilke@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:07:39 +0100
From: Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@...ibm.com>
To: dm-devel@...hat.com
Cc: "Eric Van Hensbergen" <ericvh@...il.com>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...a.kernel.org>,
ming@...s.ufl.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [RFC][PATCH] dm-cache: block level disk cache target for device mapper
On Thursday 30 November 2006 17:24, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On 11/30/06, Jens Wilke <jens.wilke@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 27 November 2006 19:26, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> >
> > If this is intended to speed up remote disks, is it possible that the cache content
> > can be paged out on local disks in low-mem situations?
> >
>
> The main intent was to use local disks as cache to offload centralized
> remote disks. The logic was that most systems have local disks, if
> only for swap -- so why not use them as a cache to help offload
> centralized storage. While the in-memory page cache works perfectly
> fine in certain situations -- we were dealing with workloads in which
> the in-memory page-cache wasn't sufficient to hold all the data.
I derived from the code that the cache is actually another block device
and not memory. Maybe you should give a little more description and
a sample 'dmsetup create' statement.
> There are also some additional possibilities we've thought through and
> have been playing with including allowing the local disk cache to be
> persistent across reboots (with varying validation schemes).
Yes, I like the idea. It would be also possible to use NV-Ram
as write back cache, for example in notebooks, to avoid
disk spin-ups or to improve transaction performance in
enterprise applications.
Maybe it would also make sense to prefill the cache contents
on startup with a bulk I/O request?
Comments on the code:
- The data of the write back cache should be flushed on suspend and not
in the destructor.
- You don't keep track of I/O on the fly to the cache that is mapped
directly in cache_hit(). How do you make sure that this I/O is completed
before you replace a cache block?
- The cache block index is hashed, this means the cache data blocks are not
clustered. I don't think you can solve this problem with a proper hash function.
Perhaps you should consider a (B-)Tree structure for that.
Best,
Jens
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists