Re: thin provisioned LUN support & file system allocation policy

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

 



On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 09:26:49AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> One more consideration that I should have mentioned is that we can also 
> make our file system allocation policies "thin provisioned LUN" friendly.
> 
> Basically, we need to try to re-allocate blocks instead of letting the 
> allocations happily progress across the entire block range. This might 
> be the inverse of an SSD friendly allocation policy, but would seem to 
> be fairly trivial to implement :-)

It's the opposite of a _flash_ friendly policy.  But SSDs are not naive
flash implementations -- if you overwrite a block, it'll just write
elsewhere and update its internal mapping of LBAs to sectors.  I
honestly think there's no difference in performance between overwriting
a block and writing elsewhere ... as long as you TRIM the LBAs you're no
longer using, of course ;-)

-- 
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