On 04.10.2024 08:27, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 08:18:11AM +0200, Javier González wrote:
And for anyone who followed the previous discussions of the patches
none of this should been new, each point has been made at least three
times before.
Looking at the work you and Hans have been doing on XFS, it seems you
have been successful at mapping the semantics of the temperature to
zones (which has no semantics, just as FDP).
What is the difference between the mapping in zones and for FDP?
Probably not much, except for all the pitfalls in the FDP not quite hint
not madatory design.
It is too late to change the first version of FDP productas, and the
solution of "go back to NVMe and make it match SCSI" is not realistic.
We have drives from several companies out there supporting this version
of FDP. And we have customers that are actively using them. It is our
collective responsibility to support them.
So, considerign that file system _are_ able to use temperature hints and
actually make them work, why don't we support FDP the same way we are
supporting zones so that people can use it in production?
I agree that down the road, an interface that allows hints (many more
than 5!) is needed. And in my opinion, this interface should not have
semintics attached to it, just a hint ID, #hints, and enough space to
put 100s of them to support storage node deployments. But this needs to
come from the users of the hints / zones / streams / etc, not from
us vendors. We do not have neither details on how they deploy these
features at scale, nor the workloads to validate the results. Anything
else will probably just continue polluting the storage stack with more
interfaces that are not used and add to the problem of data placement
fragmentation.
The whole point is using an existing interface to cover the use-case of
people wanting hints in block.
And that's fine. And that point all the way back for month is that
doing a complete dumb mapping in the driver for that is fundamentally
wrong. Kanchan's previous series did about 50% of the work to get
it rid, but then everyone dropped dead and played politics.
The issue is that the first series of this patch, which is as simple as
it gets, hit the list in May. Since then we are down paths that lead
nowhere. So the line between real technical feedback that leads to
a feature being merged, and technical misleading to make people be a
busy bee becomes very thin. In the whole data placement effort, we have
been down this path many times, unfortunately...
At LPC, we discussed about the work you did in XFS and it became clear
that coming back to the first version of the patches was the easiest way
to support the use-case that current customers have. It is a pity you
did not attend the conference and could make a point against this line
of thought there.
So summarizing, all folks in this thread are asking is for a path to
move forward for solving the block use-case, which is the only one that
I am aware of requiring kernel support. This has been validated with
real workloads, so it is very specific and tangible.
