> > > The sheer volume of testing (probably some terabytes by now) would > > > exercise the wear leveling algorithm in the FTL. > > > > > But with "old kernel" the copy operation still is "fast", as far as > > i understood. > > If FTL (e.g. wear leveling) would slow down, we would see that also > > in > > the old kernel, right? > > > > Andrea, can you confirm that the same device used with the old fast > > kernel is still fast today? > > Yes, it is still fast. Just ran a 100 trials test and got an average > of 70 seconds with standard deviation = 6 seconds, aligned with the > past values of the same kernel. > > Thanks, > Andrea I have been involved in several benchmarkings of flash devices in the past. So what we see here is definitely not a device issue regarding wear leveling. I wanted to prevent all of you going into the wrong direction, that's why i wanted Andrea to confirm that it's not a matter of the flash device. There are so much items involved into benchmarking flash devices. But Andrea's observations with factors of 10-30 times slow down i have never seen before. I assume the only thing that you change between the benchmarks is the kernel (and the modules, of course), right, Andrea? Then we can rule out cache settings which massively can impact benchmarks. The only thing that makes sense from my POV is: - collect traces with the kernel before mentioned commit (fast) - apply patch in doubt - again collect traces (slow) - compare the traces Then we should be able to see the difference(s). Unfortunately i'm not an expert on the SCSI and USB kernel stuff involved here. Else i would try to understand what happens and give you some hints. BR Carsten
