Re: [External] [LSF/MM/BPF BoF] Session for Zoned Storage 2023

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

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux