On 1/10/23 04:11, Viacheslav A.Dubeyko wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Javier González <javier.gonz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > <skipped> > >>>> >>>> (1) I am going to share SSDFS patchset soon. And topic is: >>>> SSDFS + ZNS SSD: deterministic architecture decreasing TCO cost of data infrastructure. >> >> >> Would be good to see the patches before LSF/MM/BPF. >> > > I am making code cleanup now. I am expecting to share patches in two weeks. > >> I saw your talk at Plumbers. Do you think you have more data to share >> too? Maybe even a comparisson with btrfs in terms of WAF and Space Amp? >> > > I am working to share more data. So, I should have more details. > I have data for btrfs already. Do you mean that you would like to see comparison > btrfs + compression vs. ssdfs? By the way, I am using my own methodology > to estimate WAF and space amplification. What methodology do you have in mind? > Maybe, I could improve mine. :) > > <skipped> > >>>> >>> >>> I think we can consider such discussions: >>> (1) I assume that we still need to discuss PO2 zone sizes? >> >> For this discussion to move forward, we need users rather than vendors >> talking about the need. If someone is willing to drive this discussion, >> then it makes sense. I do not believe we will make progress otherwise. >> > > As part of ByteDance, I am on user side now. :) So, let me have some internal > discussion and to summarize vision(s) on our side. I believe that, maybe, it makes > sense to summarize a list of pros and cons and to have something like analysis or > brainstorming here. > > <skipped> > >> >>> (4) New ZNS standard features that we need to support on block layer + FS levels? >> >> Do you have any concrete examples in mind? >> > > My point here that we could summarize: > (1) what features already implemented and supported, > (2) what features are under implementation and what is progress, > (3) what features need to be implemented yet. > > Have we implemented everything already? :) Standards are full of features that are not useful in a general purpose system. So we likely never will implement everything. We never did for SCSI and ATA and never will either. > >>> (5) ZNS drive emulation + additional testing features? >> >> Is this QEMU alone or do you have other ideas in mind? >> > > My point is the same here. Let’s summarize how reasonably good is emulation now. > Do we need to support the emulation of any additional features? > And we can talk not only about QEMU. > > Thanks, > Slava. > -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
