Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1210091250590.11244@dhcp-1-104.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:01:24 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
cc:	"'Lukáš Czerner'" <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	"'Namjae Jeon'" <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
	"'Vyacheslav Dubeyko'" <slava@...eyko.com>,
	"'Marco Stornelli'" <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
	"'Jaegeuk Kim'" <jaegeuk.kim@...il.com>,
	"'Al Viro'" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, tytso@....edu,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	chur.lee@...sung.com, cm224.lee@...sung.com,
	jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:

> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:45:57 +0900
> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
> To: 'Lukáš Czerner' <lczerner@...hat.com>
> Cc: 'Namjae Jeon' <linkinjeon@...il.com>,
>     'Vyacheslav Dubeyko' <slava@...eyko.com>,
>     'Marco Stornelli' <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
>     'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk.kim@...il.com>,
>     'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, tytso@....edu,
>     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
>     chur.lee@...sung.com, cm224.lee@...sung.com, jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com,
>     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-fsdevel-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-fsdevel-owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
> > Luka? Czerner
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 5:32 PM
> > To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > Cc: 'Namjae Jeon'; 'Vyacheslav Dubeyko'; 'Marco Stornelli'; 'Jaegeuk Kim'; 'Al Viro'; tytso@....edu;
> > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; chur.lee@...sung.com; cm224.lee@...sung.com;
> > jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > 
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > 
> > > Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:52:03 +0900
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
> > > To: 'Namjae Jeon' <linkinjeon@...il.com>
> > > Cc: 'Vyacheslav Dubeyko' <slava@...eyko.com>,
> > >     'Marco Stornelli' <marco.stornelli@...il.com>,
> > >     'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk.kim@...il.com>,
> > >     'Al Viro' <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, tytso@....edu,
> > >     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
> > >     chur.lee@...sung.com, cm224.lee@...sung.com, jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com,
> > >     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Namjae Jeon [mailto:linkinjeon@...il.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 7:00 PM
> > > > To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > Cc: Vyacheslav Dubeyko; Marco Stornelli; Jaegeuk Kim; Al Viro; tytso@....edu;
> > > > gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; chur.lee@...sung.com;
> > cm224.lee@...sung.com;
> > > > jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com; linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > > >
> > > > 2012/10/8, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>:
> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> From: Vyacheslav Dubeyko [mailto:slava@...eyko.com]
> > > > >> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 9:09 PM
> > > > >> To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > >> Cc: 'Marco Stornelli'; 'Jaegeuk Kim'; 'Al Viro'; tytso@....edu;
> > > > >> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-
> > > > >> kernel@...r.kernel.org; chur.lee@...sung.com; cm224.lee@...sung.com;
> > > > >> jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com;
> > > > >> linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Hi,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Oct 7, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > >> >> From: Marco Stornelli [mailto:marco.stornelli@...il.com]
> > > > >> >> Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 4:10 PM
> > > > >> >> To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > >> >> Cc: Vyacheslav Dubeyko; jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com; Al Viro;
> > > > >> >> tytso@....edu; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org;
> > > > >> >> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; chur.lee@...sung.com;
> > > > >> >> cm224.lee@...sung.com;
> > > > >> jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com;
> > > > >> >> linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
> > > > >> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Il 06/10/2012 22:06, Jaegeuk Kim ha scritto:
> > > > >> >>> 2012-10-06 (토), 17:54 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko:
> > > > >> >>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Hi.
> > > > >> >>> We know each other, right? :)
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> From:	 	김재극 <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
> > > > >> >>>>> To:	 	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@....edu>,
> > > > >> >> gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
> > > > >> >> chur.lee@...sung.com,
> > > > >> cm224.lee@...sung.com,
> > > > >> >> jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com, jooyoung.hwang@...sung.com
> > > > >> >>>>> Subject:	 	[PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > > > >> >>>>> Date:	 	Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:55:07 +0900
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> This is a new patch set for the f2fs file system.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> What is F2FS?
> > > > >> >>>>> =============
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> NAND flash memory-based storage devices, such as SSD, eMMC, and SD
> > > > >> >>>>> cards, have
> > > > >> >>>>> been widely being used for ranging from mobile to server systems.
> > > > >> >>>>> Since they are
> > > > >> >>>>> known to have different characteristics from the conventional
> > > > >> >>>>> rotational disks,
> > > > >> >>>>> a file system, an upper layer to the storage device, should adapt to
> > > > >> >>>>> the changes
> > > > >> >>>>> from the sketch.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> F2FS is a new file system carefully designed for the NAND flash
> > > > >> >>>>> memory-based storage
> > > > >> >>>>> devices. We chose a log structure file system approach, but we tried
> > > > >> >>>>> to adapt it
> > > > >> >>>>> to the new form of storage. Also we remedy some known issues of the
> > > > >> >>>>> very old log
> > > > >> >>>>> structured file system, such as snowball effect of wandering tree
> > > > >> >>>>> and high cleaning
> > > > >> >>>>> overhead.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>> Because a NAND-based storage device shows different characteristics
> > > > >> >>>>> according to
> > > > >> >>>>> its internal geometry or flash memory management scheme aka FTL, we
> > > > >> >>>>> add various
> > > > >> >>>>> parameters not only for configuring on-disk layout, but also for
> > > > >> >>>>> selecting allocation
> > > > >> >>>>> and cleaning algorithms.
> > > > >> >>>>>
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> What about F2FS performance? Could you share benchmarking results of
> > > > >> >>>> the new file system?
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>> It is very interesting the case of aged file system. How is GC's
> > > > >> >>>> implementation efficient? Could
> > > > >> >> you share benchmarking results for the very aged file system state?
> > > > >> >>>>
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>> Although I have benchmark results, currently I'd like to see the
> > > > >> >>> results
> > > > >> >>> measured by community as a black-box. As you know, the results are
> > > > >> >>> very
> > > > >> >>> dependent on the workloads and parameters, so I think it would be
> > > > >> >>> better
> > > > >> >>> to see other results for a while.
> > > > >> >>> Thanks,
> > > > >> >>>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> 1) Actually it's a strange approach. If you have got any results you
> > > > >> >> should share them with the community explaining how (the workload, hw
> > > > >> >> and so on) your benchmark works and the specific condition. I really
> > > > >> >> don't like the approach "I've got the results but I don't say
> > > > >> >> anything,
> > > > >> >> if you want a number, do it yourself".
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It's definitely right, and I meant *for a while*.
> > > > >> > I just wanted to avoid arguing with how to age file system in this
> > > > >> > time.
> > > > >> > Before then, I share the primitive results as follows.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 1. iozone in Panda board
> > > > >> > - ARM A9
> > > > >> > - DRAM : 1GB
> > > > >> > - Kernel: Linux 3.3
> > > > >> > - Partition: 12GB (64GB Samsung eMMC)
> > > > >> > - Tested on 2GB file
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >           seq. read, seq. write, rand. read, rand. write
> > > > >> > - ext4:    30.753         17.066       5.06         4.15
> > > > >> > - f2fs:    30.71          16.906       5.073       15.204
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > 2. iozone in Galaxy Nexus
> > > > >> > - DRAM : 1GB
> > > > >> > - Android 4.0.4_r1.2
> > > > >> > - Kernel omap 3.0.8
> > > > >> > - Partition: /data, 12GB
> > > > >> > - Tested on 2GB file
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >           seq. read, seq. write, rand. read,  rand. write
> > > > >> > - ext4:    29.88        12.83         11.43          0.56
> > > > >> > - f2fs:    29.70        13.34         10.79         12.82
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is results for non-aged filesystem state. Am I correct?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, right.
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Due to the company secret, I expect to show other results after
> > > > >> > presenting f2fs at korea linux forum.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> 2) For a new filesystem you should send the patches to linux-fsdevel.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Yes, that was totally my mistake.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >> 3) It's not clear the pros/cons of your filesystem, can you share with
> > > > >> >> us the main differences with the current fs already in mainline? Or is
> > > > >> >> it a company secret?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > After forum, I can share the slides, and I hope they will be useful to
> > > > >> > you.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Instead, let me summarize at a glance compared with other file systems.
> > > > >> > Here are several log-structured file systems.
> > > > >> > Note that, F2FS operates on top of block device with consideration on
> > > > >> > the FTL behavior.
> > > > >> > So, JFFS2, YAFFS2, and UBIFS are out-of scope, since they are designed
> > > > >> > for raw NAND flash.
> > > > >> > LogFS is initially designed for raw NAND flash, but expanded to block
> > > > >> > device.
> > > > >> > But, I don't know whether it is stable or not.
> > > > >> > NILFS2 is one of major log-structured file systems, which supports
> > > > >> > multiple snap-shots.
> > > > >> > IMO, that feature is quite promising and important to users, but it may
> > > > >> > degrade the performance.
> > > > >> > There is a trade-off between functionalities and performance.
> > > > >> > F2FS chose high performance without any further fancy functionalities.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Performance is a good goal. But fault-tolerance is also very important
> > > > >> point. Filesystems are used by
> > > > >> users, so, it is very important to guarantee reliability of data keeping.
> > > > >> Degradation of performance
> > > > >> by means of snapshots is arguable point. Snapshots can solve the problem
> > > > >> not only some unpredictable
> > > > >> environmental issues but also user's erroneous behavior.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I agree. I concerned the multiple snapshot feature.
> > > > > Of course, fault-tolerance is very important, and file system should support
> > > > > it as you know as power-off-recovery.
> > > > > f2fs supports the recovery mechanism by adopting checkpoint similar to
> > > > > snapshot.
> > > > > But, f2fs does not support multiple snapshots for user convenience.
> > > > > I just focused on the performance, and absolutely, the multiple snapshot
> > > > > feature is also a good alternative approach.
> > > > > That may be a trade-off.
> > > > >
> > > > >> As I understand, it is not possible to have a perfect performance in all
> > > > >> possible workloads. Could you
> > > > >> point out what workloads are the best way of F2FS using?
> > > > >
> > > > > Basically I think the following workloads will be good for F2FS.
> > > > > - Many random writes : it's LFS nature
> > > > > - Small writes with frequent fsync : f2fs is optimized to reduce the fsync
> > > > > overhead.
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Maybe or obviously it is possible to optimize ext4 or btrfs to flash
> > > > >> > storages.
> > > > >> > IMHO, however, they are originally designed for HDDs, so that it may or
> > > > >> > may not suffer from
> > > > >> fundamental designs.
> > > > >> > I don't know, but why not designing a new file system for flash storages
> > > > >> > as a counterpart?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yes, it is possible. But F2FS is not flash oriented filesystem as JFFS2,
> > > > >> YAFFS2, UBIFS but block-
> > > > >> oriented filesystem. So, F2FS design is restricted by block-layer's
> > > > >> opportunities in the using of
> > > > >> flash storages' peculiarities. Could you point out key points of F2FS
> > > > >> design that makes this design
> > > > >> fundamentally unique?
> > > > >
> > > > > As you can see the f2fs kernel document patch, I think one of the most
> > > > > important features is to align operating units between f2fs and ftl.
> > > > > Specifically, f2fs has section and zone, which are cleaning unit and basic
> > > > > allocation unit respectively.
> > > > > Through these configurable units in f2fs, I think f2fs is able to reduce the
> > > > > unnecessary operations done by FTL.
> > > > > And, in order to avoid changing IO patterns by the block-layer, f2fs merges
> > > > > itself some bios likewise ext4.
> > > > Hello.
> > > > The internal of eMMC and SSD is the blackbox from user side.
> > > > How does the normal user easily set operating units alignment(page
> > > > size and physical block size ?) between f2fs and ftl in storage device
> > > > ?
> > >
> > > I've known that some works have been tried to figure out the units by profiling the storage, AKA
> > reverse engineering.
> > > In most cases, the simplest way is to measure the latencies of consecutive writes and analyze their
> > patterns.
> > > As you mentioned, in practical, users will not want to do this, so maybe we need a tool to profile
> > them to optimize f2fs.
> > > In the current state, I think profiling is an another issue, and mkfs.f2fs had better include this
> > work in the future.
> > > But, IMO, from the viewpoint of performance, default configuration is quite enough now.
> > >
> > > ps) f2fs doesn't care about the flash page size, but considers garbage collection unit.
> > 
> > I am sorry but this reply makes me smile. How can you design a fs
> > relying on time attack heuristics to figure out what the proper
> > layout should be ? Or even endorse such heuristics to be used in
> > mkfs ? What we should be focusing on is to push vendors to actually
> > give us such information so we can properly propagate that
> > throughout the kernel - that's something everyone will benefit from.
> > After that the optimization can be done in every file system.
> > 
> 
> Frankly speaking, I agree that it would be the right direction eventually.
> But, as you know, it's very difficult for all flash vendors to promote and standardize that.
> Because each vendors have different strategies to open their internal information and also try
> to protect their secrets whatever they are.
> 
> IMO, we don't need to wait them now.
> Instead, from the start, I suggest f2fs that uses those information to the file system design.
> In addition, I suggest using heuristics right now as best efforts.
> Maybe in future, if vendors give something, f2fs would be more feasible.
> In the mean time, I strongly hope to validate and stabilize f2fs with community.

Do not get me wrong, I do not think it is worth to wait for vendors
to come to their senses, but it is worth constantly reminding that
we *need* this kind of information and those heuristics are not
feasible in the long run anyway.

I believe that this conversation happened several times already, but
what about having independent public database of all the internal
information about hw from different vendors where users can add
information gathered by the time attack heuristic so other does not
have to run this again and again. I am not sure if Linaro or someone
else have something like that, someone can maybe post a link to that.

Eventually we can show this to the vendors to see that their
"secrets" are already public anyway and that everyones lives would be
easier if they just agree to provide it from the beginning.

> 
> > Promoting time attack heuristics instead of pushing vendors to tell
> > us how their hardware should be used is a journey to hell and we've
> > been talking about this for a looong time now. And I imagine that
> > you especially have quite some persuasion power.
> 
> I know. :)
> If there comes a chance, I want to try.
> Thanks,

That's very good to hear, thank you.

-Lukas

> 
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > -Lukas
> > 
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> With the best regards,
> > > > >> Vyacheslav Dubeyko.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >>
> > > > >> >> Marco
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ---
> > > > >> > Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > >> > Samsung
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > --
> > > > >> > 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/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > > Samsung
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > > > > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > > > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Jaegeuk Kim
> > > Samsung
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Jaegeuk Kim
> Samsung
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists