Re: UNMAP is a hint

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:05:57PM -0500, Black_David@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 19:31 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > I think this is the crux of the issue. IMO, it's not much of a
> standard
> > > when the spirit of the standard is to allow everyone to implement
> > > different, non-deterministic behaviour....
> > 
> > I disagree. The discard request is a _hint_ from the upper layers, and
> > the storage device can act on that hint as it sees fit. There's
> nothing
> > wrong with that; it doesn't make it "not much of a standard".
> 
> Bingo!  That is exactly the spirit and thinking behind the UNMAP
> proposal.

While that may be, it's hardly the spirit that Ric (at least) has been
promoting with dire warnings about how 'Enterprise class' customers will
react if Linux does the wrong thing for EMC arrays with discard/trim/unmap.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux