On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:59:49AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-10 at 19:31 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:40:24PM -0500, Black_David@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > There will be a chunk size value available in a VPD page that can be > > > used to determine minimum size/alignment. For openers, I see > > > essentially > > > no point in a 512-byte UNMAP, even though it's allowed by the standard - > > > I suspect most arrays (and many SSDs) will ignore it, and ignoring > > > it is definitely within the spirit of the proposed T10 standard (hint: > > > I'm one of the people directly working on that proposal). > > > > I think this is the crux of the issue. IMO, it's not much of a standard > > when the spirit of the standard is to allow everyone to implement > > different, non-deterministic behaviour.... > > I disagree. The discard request is a _hint_ from the upper layers, and > the storage device can act on that hint as it sees fit. There's nothing > wrong with that; it doesn't make it "not much of a standard". If it's not reliable, then it is effectively useless from a design persepctive. The fact that it is being treated as a hint means that everyone is going to require "defrag" tools to clean up the mess when the array runs out of space. Treating it as a reliable command (i.e. it succeeds or returns an error) means that we can implement filesystems that can do unmapping in such a way that when the array reports that it is out of space we *know* that there is no free space that can be unmapped. i.e. no need for a "defrag" tool. The defrag tool approach is a cop-out. It simply does not scale to environments where you have hundreds of luns spread over hundreds of machines, and each of them needs to be "defragged" individually to find all the unmappable space in the array. It gets worse in the virutalised space where you might have tens of virtual machines using each lun. This is why unmap as a hint is a fundamentally broken model from an overall storage stack persepctive, no matter how appealing it is to array vendors.... > Storage devices are complex enough that they _already_ exhibit behaviour > which is fairly much non-deterministic in a number of ways. Especially > if we're talking about SSDs or large arrays, rather than just disks. > A standard needs to be clear about what _is_ guaranteed, and what is > _not_ guaranteed. If it is explicit that the storage device is permitted > to ignore the discard hint, and some storage devices do so under some > circumstances, then that is just fine. Right, it's non-deterministic even within a single device. That makes it impossible to implement something reliable because the higher layers are not provided with any guarantee they can rely on. A hint is useless from a design perspective - guarantees are required for reliable operation and if we are not designing new storage features with reliability as a primary concern then we are wasting our time... > > Unmapping can and should be made reliable so that we don't have to > > waste effort trying to fix up mismatches that shouldn't have occurred > > in the first place... > > Perhaps so. But remember, this can only really be considered a > correctness issue on thin-provisioned arrays -- because they may run out > of space sooner than they should. But that kind of failure mode is > something that is explicitly accepted by those designing and using such > thin-provisioned arrays. It's not as if we're introducing any _new_ kind > of problem. Very true. But this is not a justification for not providing a reliable unmapping service. If anything it's justification for being reliable; that when you finally run out of space, there really is no more space available.... Defrag is not the answer here. > So I think it's perfectly acceptable for the operating system to treat > discard requests as a hint, with best-effort semantics. And any device > which _really_ cares will need to make sure for _itself_ that it handles > those hints reliably. So how do you propose that a storage architect who is trying to design a reliable thin provisioning storage stack finds out which devices actually do reliable unmapping? Vendors are simply going to say they support the unmap command, which currently means anything from "ignore completely" to "always do the right thing". Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
