On 12/13/2010 01:20 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:17:51PM +, Paddy Steed wrote:
So, no-one has any idea's on how to implement the cache. Would making it
all swap work, does to OS cache files in swap?
Quite the opposite. Too many people have ideas for SSD-as-cache in
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 05:17:51PM +, Paddy Steed wrote:
> So, no-one has any idea's on how to implement the cache. Would making it
> all swap work, does to OS cache files in swap?
Quite the opposite. Too many people have ideas for SSD-as-cache in Linux,
in non particular order:
— bcache
—
On 13/12/2010 17:17, Paddy Steed wrote:
So, no-one has any idea's on how to implement the cache. Would making it
all swap work, does to OS cache files in swap?
No, it doesn't. I don't believe there are any plans to implement
hierarchical storage in BTRFS, but perhaps one of the developers can
Thank you for all your replies.
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 00:04 +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On 12/12/2010 17:24, Paddy Steed wrote:
> > In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
> > will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
> > disks for a RAID
On 13/12/2010 15:17, cwillu wrote:
In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
disks for a RAID array. I understand that BTRFS RAID 5 support will be
available shortly. What is the best possible way f
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 05:11 AM, Sander wrote:
>>
>> Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2010 17:24, Paddy Steed wrote:
In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after t
On 13/12/2010 14:33, Peter Harris wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
I suggest you back your opinion up with some hard data before making such
statements. Here's a quick test - make an ext2 fs and a btrfs on two similar
disk partitions (any disk, for the sake of the expe
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> I suggest you back your opinion up with some hard data before making such
> statements. Here's a quick test - make an ext2 fs and a btrfs on two similar
> disk partitions (any disk, for the sake of the experiment it doesn't have to
> be an ssd)
On 12/13/2010 05:11 AM, Sander wrote:
Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
On 12/12/2010 17:24, Paddy Steed wrote:
In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
disks for a RAID array. I understand that BTRFS RAID
Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
> On 12/12/2010 17:24, Paddy Steed wrote:
> >In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
> >will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
> >disks for a RAID array. I understand that BTRFS RAID 5 support will be
> >available
On 12/12/2010 17:24, Paddy Steed wrote:
In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
disks for a RAID array. I understand that BTRFS RAID 5 support will be
available shortly. What is the best possible w
In a few weeks parts for my new computer will be arriving. The storage
will be a 128GB SSD. A few weeks after that I will order three large
disks for a RAID array. I understand that BTRFS RAID 5 support will be
available shortly. What is the best possible way for me to get the
highest performance o
On 03/13/2010 08:43 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
- Nowadays: being a linux installation today chances are that the matrix has
you. Quite a lot of installations are virtualized. So your storage is a virtual
one either, which means it is likely being a fs buffer from the host system,
i.e. RAM
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 05:43:59PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:17 -0500
> Chris Mason wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
> > > Sander wrote:
> > >
> > > > Stephan vo
On Saturday 13 March 2010 17:43:59 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:17 -0500
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
> > > Sander wrote:
> > > > Stephan von Krawczynski wro
On Saturday 13 March 2010 18:02:10 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:00:08 +0100
> Hubert Kario wrote:
> > > Even on true
> > > spinning disks your assumption is wrong for relocated sectors.
> >
> > Which we don't have to worry about because if the drive has less than 5
> >
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:00:08 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> > Even on true
> > spinning disks your assumption is wrong for relocated sectors.
>
> Which we don't have to worry about because if the drive has less than 5 of
> 'em, the impact of hitting them is marginal and if there are more, the user
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:00:17 -0500
Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
> > Sander wrote:
> >
> > > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> > > > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option si
On Friday 12 March 2010 10:15:28 Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:07:40 +0100
>
> Hubert Kario wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > If the FS were to be smart and know about the 256kb requirement, it
> > > would do a read/modify/write cycle somewhere and then write the 4KB.
> >
> > If
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:07:40 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> > [...]
> > If the FS were to be smart and know about the 256kb requirement, it
> > would do a read/modify/write cycle somewhere and then write the 4KB.
>
> If all the free blocks have been TRIMmed, FS should pick a completely free
> eras
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:07:40AM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > > For example - you have a disk that has had all it's addressable blocks
> > > tainted. A new write comes in - what do you do with it? Worse, a write
> > > comes in spanning two erase blocks as a consequence of the data
> > > re-alig
On Thursday 11 March 2010 17:19:32 Chris Mason wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:03:59PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:35:33 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> Besides, why shouldn't we help the drive firmware by
> > >> - writing the data only in erase-
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 06:35:06PM +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
> Sander wrote:
>
> > Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> > > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the
> > > vendors implement all kinds of neat strategie
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100
Sander wrote:
> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the
> > vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the
> > end
> > you cannot really tell if the option does
> "Gordan" == Gordan Bobic writes:
Gordan> SD == SSD with an SD interface.
No, not really.
It is true that conceivably you could fit a sophisticated controller in
an SD card form factor. But fact is that takes up space which could
otherwise be used for flash. There may also be power consu
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:18:48PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:21:30 -0500, Chris Mason
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:49:34PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> >> I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
> &g
> "Gordan" == Gordan Bobic writes:
Gordan> I fully agree that it's important for wear leveling on flash
Gordan> media, but from the security point of view, I think TRIM would
Gordan> be a useful feature on all storage media. If the erased blocks
Gordan> were trimmed it would provide a potenti
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:03:59PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:35:33 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
> wrote:
>
> >> Besides, why shouldn't we help the drive firmware by
> >> - writing the data only in erase-block sizes
> >> - trying to write blocks that are smaller than t
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:21:30 -0500, Chris Mason
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:49:34PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>> I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
>> optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd
>> moun
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:42:40 +0100, Asdo wrote:
> 1- I think the SSD would rewrite once-written blocks to other locations,
> so to reuse the same physical blocks for wear levelling. The
> written-once blocks are very good candidates because their write-count
> is "1"
There are likely to be mi
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:35:33 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
wrote:
>> Besides, why shouldn't we help the drive firmware by
>> - writing the data only in erase-block sizes
>> - trying to write blocks that are smaller than the erase-block in a way
>> that won't cross the erase-block boundary
>
>
Gordan Bobic wrote:
TRIM lets the OS tell the disk which blocks are not in use anymore, and
thus don't have to be copied during a rewrite of the blocks.
Wear-leveling is the SSD making sure all blocks are more or less equally
written to avoid continuous load on the same blocks.
And thus it
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:01:55 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> [...]
> The _SD_standard_ states that the media has to implement wear-leveling.
> So any card with an SD logo implements it.
>
> As I stated previously, the algorithms used in SD cards may not be as
> advanced
> as those in top-of-the-li
Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao):
> Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the
> vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the end
> you cannot really tell if the option does something constructive and not
> destructive in combination with
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:49:34PM +, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
> optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd
> mount option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are
> there
On Thursday 11 March 2010 14:20:23 Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:59:09 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >wrote:
> >> >> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:59:09 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
wrote:
>> >> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >wrote:
>> >> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help
>> reduce
>> >> > > >>wear and improve performance?
>> >> >
>> >> > W
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:17:30 +
Gordan Bobic wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:31:03 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
> wrote:
> >> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic
> >> > > >wrote:
> >> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help
> reduce
> >> > > >>wear
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:31:03 +0100, Stephan von Krawczynski
wrote:
>> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help
reduce
>> > > >>wear and improve performance?
>> >
>> > With SSDs you don't have to worry
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:57 +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
> Still, I think that if you can prolong the life of hardware without
> noticable
> performance degradation, you should do it. Just because it may help the
> drive
> with some defects last those 3-5years between upgreades without any
> pro
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:35:45 +, Daniel J Blueman
wrote:
[...]
Are there similar optimizations available in BTRFS?
>>>
>>> There is an SSD mount option available[1].
>>>
>>> [1]
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started#Mount_Options
>>
>> But what _exactly_ does it do?
>
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:38:53 +0100, Sander wrote:
>> >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help reduce
>> >>wear and improve performance?
>
> With SSDs you don't have to worry about wear.
And if you believe that you clearly swallowed the marketing spiel hook
line and sinker wi
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:59:57 +0100
Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Thursday 11 March 2010 08:38:53 Sander wrote:
> > Hello Gordan,
> >
> > Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
> > > Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> > > >>Are there options available comparable to ext
On Thursday 11 March 2010 08:38:53 Sander wrote:
> Hello Gordan,
>
> Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
> > Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> > >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help reduce
> > >>wear and improve performance?
>
> With SSD
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> Marcus Fritzsch wrote:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>> Are there similar optimizations available in BTRFS?
>>
>> There is an SSD mount option available[1].
>>
>> [1] http://btrfs.w
Hello Gordan,
Gordan Bobic wrote (ao):
> Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> >>Are there options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help reduce
> >>wear and improve performance?
With SSDs you don't have to worry about wear.
> And while I appreciate hop
Mike Fedyk wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd mount
option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are there op
Marcus Fritzsch wrote:
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
[...]
Are there similar optimizations available in BTRFS?
There is an SSD mount option available[1].
[1] http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started#Mount_Options
But what _exactly_ does it do
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
> optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd mount
> option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are there optio
Erm... You know, sorry for the noise.
Cheers,
Marcus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi there,
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
> [...]
> Are there similar optimizations available in BTRFS?
There is an SSD mount option available[1].
Cheers,
Marcus
[1] http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Getting_started#Mount_Options
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send
I'm looking to try BTRFS on a SSD, and I would like to know what SSD
optimizations it applies. Is there a comprehensive list of what ssd
mount option does? How are the blocks and metadata arranged? Are there
options available comparable to ext2/ext3 to help reduce wear and
improve perfor
52 matches
Mail list logo
