On Sat, Mar 04, 2023 at 06:17:35PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 3/4/23 17:47, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 04, 2023 at 12:08:36PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > > We could implement a (virtual) zoned device, and expose each zone as a > > > block. That gives us the required large block characteristics, and with > > > a bit of luck we might be able to dial up to really large block sizes > > > like the 256M sizes on current SMR drives. > > > ublk might be a good starting point. > > > > Ummmm. Is supporting 256MB block sizes really a desired goal? I suggest > > that is far past the knee of the curve; if we can only write 256MB chunks > > as a single entity, we're looking more at a filesystem redesign than we > > are at making filesystems and the MM support 256MB size blocks. > > > Naa, not really. It _would_ be cool as we could get rid of all the cludges > which have nowadays re sequential writes. > And, remember, 256M is just a number someone thought to be a good > compromise. If we end up with a lower number (16M?) we might be able > to convince the powers that be to change their zone size. > Heck, with 16M block size there wouldn't be a _need_ for zones in > the first place. > > But yeah, 256M is excessive. Initially I would shoot for something > like 2M. I think we're talking about different things (probably different storage vendors want different things, or even different people at the same storage vendor want different things). Luis and I are talking about larger LBA sizes. That is, the minimum read/write size from the block device is 16kB or 64kB or whatever. In this scenario, the minimum amount of space occupied by a file goes up from 512 bytes or 4kB to 64kB. That's doable, even if somewhat suboptimal. Your concern seems to be more around shingled devices (or their equivalent in SSD terms) where there are large zones which are append-only, but you can still random-read 512 byte LBAs. I think there are different solutions to these problems, and people are working on both of these problems. But if storage vendors are really pushing for 256MB LBAs, then that's going to need a third kind of solution, and I'm not aware of anyone working on that.
