On 2014-01-30 12:27, Vyacheslav Dubeyko wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Andreas Rohner wrote: > >> >> I have just finished a test with my 100 GB HDD and SSD. I filled it >> with dd until it was 100% full. Then I cut power to the machine and >> timed the following mount operation: >> >> 100GB HDD: >> time sudo mount -o bad_ftl /dev/sda1 /mnt/ >> >> real 1m21.068s >> user 0m0.020s >> sys 0m0.770s >> >> 100GB SSD: >> time sudo mount -o bad_ftl /dev/sdc1 /mnt/ >> >> real 0m2.124s >> user 0m0.010s >> sys 0m0.243s >> >> So it looks quite bad for hard drives. To scan a 1 TB hard drive would >> take 13 minutes. >> >> But a 1 TB SSD would only take 20 seconds! >> > > I think that it will be good to have comparable results for the same > environment. > I mean, for example, measurement in different situations for SSD (without your > patch and this your patch). How much time do you need for scanning the whole > SSD > by your approach? I think that comparison of linear scanning results for the > whole > SSD drive and for sudden power-off situation can provide basis for > consideration. > But sudden power-off situation can be different, I suppose.
I will test it more thoroughly in the evening or tomorrow morning. The whole SSD has 120 GB, but I only use a 100 GB partition to be able to better compare it with my hard drive. The scan always scans the whole partition, because you cannot predict where the latest segment will be. It is a pretty worn out Samsung 840 SSD. I use it for all my tests. br, Andreas Rohner > Thanks, > Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > >> I will test one of my SD cards next. >> >> Regards, >> Andreas Rohner > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
