On 02/22, Matias Bjørling wrote: > On 21-02-2024 18:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > Doesn't this break practically all ZNS NVMe devices? > > > > Yes, so here I'm in questioning who is really using w/ zone capacity. If > > there's > > no user complaining, I'd like to deprecate this, since this adds code > > complexity > > and unnecessary checks. > > > > Hi Jaegeuk, > > I like to make a couple of points to hopefully keep the support in a little > while longer. > > - NVMe-based zone devices continue to be developed with the pow2 zone size > and zone size != zone cap features. There was some divergence in the > first-gen drives. However, all the second-gen drives I know of are > implemented with those features in mind. > > - A very active community is doing work using f2fs, and many of those > members are working with the ZN540s device (which exposes a pow2 zone size). > > - For drives with a capacity of less than 16TiB, f2fs is an excellent file > system to use and is really useful for various use cases. We're using the > f2fs daily for a couple of our workloads. > > Work is ongoing on btrfs and XFS to support zoned storage devices, but they > have yet to be through the trenches as much as f2fs has been with its zone > support. So it would be great to have f2fs continue to support the pow2 zone > sizes, as it is a valuable feature for the currently used and second-gen > drives that have been released or are soon becoming available. > > If there is a performance concern with the feature re: ZUFS, maybe the pow2 > implementation could be slightly more computationally expensive, as the > feature, anyway, typically is used on more beefy systems.
Thanks, Matias for the background. It seems to be fair for keeping this for a while tho, IMO, non-pow2 could address both parties. > > Regards, > Matias _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
