On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 09:19:51AM +0100, Hans Holmberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 11:33 PM Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That is very much apples-to-oranges. The B+ isn't on the same device > > being evaluated for WAF, where this has all that mixed in. I think the > > results are pretty good, all things considered. > > No. The meta data IO is just 0.1% of all writes, so that we use a > separate device for that in the benchmark really does not matter. It's very little spatially, but they overwrite differently than other data, creating many small holes in large erase blocks. > Since we can achieve a WAF of ~1 for RocksDB on flash, why should we > be content with another 67% of unwanted device side writes on top of > that? > > It's of course impossible to compare your benchmark figures and mine > directly since we are using different devices, but hey, we definitely > have an opportunity here to make significant gains for FDP if we just > provide the right kernel interfaces. > > Why shouldn't we expose the hardware in a way that enables the users > to make the most out of it? Because the people using this want this interface. Stalling for the last 6 months hasn't produced anything better, appealing to non-existent vaporware to block something ready-to-go that satisfies a need right now is just wasting everyone's time. Again, I absolutely disagree that this locks anyone in to anything. That's an overly dramatic excuse.
