Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759886AbYJMSiS (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:38:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756383AbYJMSiJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:38:09 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:53908 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755764AbYJMSiI (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:38:08 -0400 Message-ID: <48F395AA.30208@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:38:34 -0400 From: Chris Snook User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SsO2cm4gRW5nZWw=?= CC: Stefan Monnier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Filesystem for block devices using flash storage? References: <48ED1D62.8080100@redhat.com> <20081012143505.GA15799@logfs.org> <48F385B5.1040503@redhat.com> <20081013181333.GB22447@logfs.org> In-Reply-To: <20081013181333.GB22447@logfs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1756 Lines: 41 Jörn Engel wrote: > On Mon, 13 October 2008 13:30:29 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: >>>> logfs tries to solve the write amplification problem by forcing all write >>>> activity to be sequential. I'm not sure how mature it is. >>> Still under development. What exactly do you mean by the write >>> amplification problem? >> Write amplification is where a 512 byte write turns into a 128k write, >> due to erase block size. > > Ah, yes. Current logfs still triggers that a bit too often. I'm > currently working on the format changes to avoid the amplification as > much as possible. > > Another nasty side effect of this is that heuristics for wear leveling > are always imprecise. And wear leveling is still required for most > devices. See http://www.linuxconf.eu/2007/papers/Engel.pdf > >> Intel is claiming a write amplification factor of 1.1. Either they're >> using very small erase blocks, or doing something very smart in the >> controller. > > With very small erase blocks the facter should be either 1 or 2, not > 1.1. Most likely they work very much like logfs does, essentially doing > the whole log-structured thing internally. > > Jörn > As I understand it, they mean that in a real-world workload that writes 1x data, a total of 1.1x is written on flash. Real-world writes are usually, but not always, larger than a single sector. Of course, the validity of this number depends greatly on the test. If someone has more info on the Intel devices, please clue me in. -- Chris -- 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/