Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752638AbXLDR4U (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:56:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752255AbXLDRy5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:54:57 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.182]:53183 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754347AbXLDRy4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:54:56 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=HQ5fI75TD6SVByjL/f5n/Lt6BoyVLL0/6Gr48Fcog2Gn5WdjJ4I0q8DpquEyv3pr+3UIY7WATCGOO0d/OzDGvIu3UEaZ7wbobayeBPnKNhymdrxKOYmBy3mBIhjCD/HzBWu/vXDHnvcEFVffN+rhYPiJ06IZloihekv06QPmDRI= Message-ID: <6934efce0712040954v74cf0b4bk19b49988bc828233@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 09:54:54 -0800 From: "Jared Hulbert" To: "Alan Cox" Subject: Re: solid state drive access and context switching Cc: "Chris Friesen" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20071203230629.725f4c7a@the-village.bc.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47548BF4.3010907@nortel.com> <20071203230629.725f4c7a@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1351 Lines: 30 > > Has anyone played with this concept? > > For things like SATA based devices they aren't that fast yet. What is fast enough? As I understand the basic memory technology, the hard limit is in the 100's of microseconds range for latency. SATA adds something to that. I'd be surprised to see latencies on SATA SSD's as measured at the OS level to get below 1 millisecond. What happens we start placing NAND technology in lower latency, higher bandwidth buses? I'm guessing we'll get down to that 100's of microseconds level and an order of magnitude higher bandwidth than SATA. Is that fast enough to warrant this more synchronous IO? Magnetic drives have latencies ~10 milliseconds, current SSD's are an order of magnitude better (~1 millisecond), new interfaces and refinements could theoretically get us down one more (~100 microsecond). I'm guessing the current block driver subsystem would negate a lot of that latency gain. Am I wrong? BTW - This trend toward faster, lower latency busses is marching forward. 2 examples; the ioDrive from Fusion IO, Micron's RAM-module like SSD concept. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/