Hi Bart, >On 10/31/23 23:39, Daejun Park wrote: >>> On 10/30/23 04:11, Kanchan Joshi wrote: >>>> On 10/18/2023 2:17 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>> Thanks for having taken a look at this patch series. Jens asked for data >>> that shows that this patch series improves performance. Is this >>> something Samsung can help with? >> >> We analyzed the NAND block erase counter with and without stream separation >> through a long-term workload in F2FS. >> The analysis showed that the erase counter is reduced by approximately 40% >> with stream seperation. >> Long-term workload is a scenario where erase and write are repeated by >> stream after performing precondition fill for each temperature of F2FS. > >Hi Daejun, > >Thank you for having shared this data. This is very helpful. Since I'm >not familiar with the erase counter: does the above data perhaps mean >that write amplification is reduced by 40% in the workload that has been >examined? WAF is not only caused by GC. It is also caused by other reasons. During device GC, the valid pages in the victim block are migrated, and a lower erase counter means that the effective GC is performed by selecting a victim block with a small number of invalid pages. Thus, it can be said that the WAF can be decreased about 40% by selecting fewer victim blocks during device GC. Thanks, Daejun > >Thanks, > >Bart.
