Re: thin provisioned LUN support

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

 



On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 03:24:05PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> I think we should be content to declare such devices 'broken'.
> 
> They have to keep track of individual sectors _anyway_, and dropping 
> information for small discard requests is just careless.

As an implementor of such a device, I say "ya, boo, sucks to you".
ata_ram simply ignores the bits of the trim which don't line up with the
page size chunks it's allocated.  Sure, it'd be possible to add a bitmap
to indicate which 512-byte chunks of the block contain data and which
don't, but I haven't done that yet.  I think there's even space in the
struct page that I can abuse to do that.

I think this really is a QoI thing.  Vendors who don't track individual
sectors will gradually get less and less efficient.  Hopefully users
will buy from vendors who don't cheat.  We can even write a quick
program to allocate the entire drive then trim sectors in a chessboard
patterns.  That'll let users see who's got a crap implementation and
who's got a good one.

-- 
Matthew Wilcox				Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux