[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAv8mH3kukd-ii04hQbMZGj7iTwQhpFDwFtnz0h3JBMe6gaGxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:59:48 +0200
From: Daniel Noack <fsf.deathman@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Mmap on SSD (directly mapping the device vs. mapping a file)
Hi, folks!
First of all I have to say sorry that I'm not a subscriber of the list now,
but I will subscribe in the near future (need an extra email account for it
;) ). It would be nice if you could put me on CC for an answer to my
question.
Like you can see on the subject I experimented a little bit with mmap in the
last time. I've written a little B+tree library which uses mmap to store
the tree to a file or the whole device (means it is also possible to map
the hwole device (i.e. /dev/sdb)). I used msync after every successfull
change on the tree. Next thing I did was to use this for a little benchmark
on performance of different storage devices (ramdisk, HDD, and a very fast
flashcard directly atteched to the PCIe bus). I recognized that in allmost
all cases when directly mapping teh device without a filesystem the
file-mapped version was a little bit slower. But when I tried it on an SSD
device the file-mapped version was an order of magnitude faster. I also
tried secure erase and did the benchmarks many times and in many
configurations, but I came to the same results. Can anyone explain me
what's happening here or have I something missed. Is this behavior correct?
Thanks,
Daniel
--
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