Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Cloud storage optimizations

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

 



On Thu, 2023-03-09 at 10:23 -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > This is not to say I think larger block sizes is in any way a bad
> > idea ... I just think that given the history, it will be driven by
> > application needs rather than what the manufacturers tell us.
> 
> I think it would be beneficial for Linux to support filesystem blocks
> larger than the page size. Based on experience outlined above, I am
> not convinced larger logical block sizes will get much traction. But
> that doesn't prevent devices from advertising larger
> physical/minimum/optimal I/O sizes and for us to handle those more
> gracefully than we currently do.

Right, I was wondering if we could try to persuade the Manufacturers to
advertise a more meaningful optimal I/O size ...  But as you say, the
pressure is coming from applications and filesystems for larger block
sizes and that will create I/O patterns that are more beneficial to the
underlying device hardware regardless of whether it actually tells us
anything about what it would like.

James




[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