[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CEFBACD.6040603@teksavvy.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 08:49:01 -0500
From: Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
To: Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>
CC: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super_operation
On 10-11-25 11:24 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>
> I'm away from my systems today, but is there an easy way to tweak
> wiper.sh or hdparm to cause only a single range per trim command.
>
> I'm curious if for the Sandforce that would still be in the 90 second
> range, or closer to 64x that.
Good question. The Indilinx based drives would be in the 64x range,
no doubt there. But I don't know about the Sandforce.
And I don't think I'm willing to inflict so many life-shortening erase
cycles onto it just to find out.
One thing to note: the execution time for TRIM does vary depending upon
whether the (logical) LBAs are already mostly in a "trimmed" state or not.
So anyone aspiring to benchmark this stuff will need to keep that in mind.
My timings above were for "already trimmed" cases. I would expect them
to be much slower (2x - 3x) if the sectors all held data prior to trim.
Cheers
--
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