Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is possible

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Kyle Moffett
Date: Monday, March 16, 2009 - 9:55 pm

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:

The really nice SSDs actually reserve ~15-30% of their internal
block-level storage and actually run their own log-structured virtual
disk in hardware.  From what I understand the Intel SSDs are that way.
 Real-time garbage collection is tricky, but if you require (for
example) a max of ~80% utilization then you can provide good latency
and bandwidth guarantees.  There's usually something like a
log-structured virtual-to-physical sector map as well.  If designed
properly with automatic hardware checksumming, such a system can
actually provide atomic writes and barriers with virtually no impact
on performance.

With firmware-level hardware knowledge and the ability to perform
extremely efficient parallel reads of flash blocks, such a
log-structured virtual block device can be many times more efficient
than a general purpose OS running a log-structured filesystem.  The
result is that for an ordinary ext3-esque filesystem with 4k blocks
you can treat the SSD as though it is an atomic-write seek-less block
device.

Now if only I had the spare cash to go out and buy one of the shiny
Intel ones for my laptop... :-)

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is ..., Kyle Moffett, (Mon Mar 16, 9:55 pm)
Re: ext2/3: document conditions when reliable operation is ..., Goswin von Brederlow, (Mon Mar 30, 8:06 am)
[patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:21 pm)
[patch] document that ext2 can't handle barriers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:27 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:33 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 3:40 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 3:59 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 4:37 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 4:48 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 4:56 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:06 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:12 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:26 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:28 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:38 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:39 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Tue Aug 25, 5:44 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:45 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Tue Aug 25, 5:50 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:17 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Tue Aug 25, 6:19 pm)
Re: [patch] ext2/3: document conditions when reliable oper ..., Henrique de Moraes H ..., (Tue Aug 25, 7:53 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:20 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Tue Aug 25, 9:24 pm)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:21 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:22 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Wed Aug 26, 4:25 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 4:58 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:37 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Theodore Tso, (Wed Aug 26, 5:40 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ric Wheeler, (Wed Aug 26, 6:11 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, david, (Wed Aug 26, 6:44 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Rik van Riel, (Wed Aug 26, 7:45 am)
Re: MD/DM and barriers (was Re: [patch] ext2/3: document c ..., Alasdair G Kergon, (Thu Aug 27, 11:09 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, Florian Weimer, (Fri Aug 28, 12:11 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret, NeilBrown, (Fri Aug 28, 12:23 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:38 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 2:39 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Ron Johnson, (Sat Aug 29, 4:47 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, jim owens, (Sat Aug 29, 9:12 am)
Re: [patch] document flash/RAID dangers, Pavel Machek, (Sat Aug 29, 11:49 pm)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Sun Aug 30, 9:35 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:16 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 6:21 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Jesse Brandeburg, (Mon Aug 31, 10:49 am)
Re: raid is dangerous but that's secret (was Re: [patch] e ..., Christoph Hellwig, (Mon Aug 31, 11:31 am)