[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080310210352.GJ1581@marowsky-bree.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:03:52 +0100
From: Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
Cc: Grzegorz Kulewski <kangur@...com.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ramback: faster than a speeding bullet
On 2008-03-10T09:37:37, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> Why - your chunks simply become a linked list in write barrier order.
> Solve your bitmap sweep cost as well. As you are already making a copy
> before going to backing store you don't have the internal consistency
> problems of further writes during the I/O.
You get duplicated blocks though. But yes, I agree - write-backs to the
disk must be ordered, other it's going to be too unreliable in practice.
An in-memory buffer for a log-structured block device.
> Yes you may need to throttle in the specific case of having too many
> copies of pages sitting in the queue - but surely that would be the set of
> pages that are written but not yet committed from a previous store
> barrier ?
You could switch from a journal like the above to a bitmap when this
overrun occurs. (Typical problem in replication.) SteelEye holds a
patent on that though, as far as I know.
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
--
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