Hi Ric,
Am 23.11.2013 20:35, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement
Hi Ric,
Am 23.11.2013 20:35, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement
On 11/23/2013 07:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sat 2013-11-23 18:01:32, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to
> Yes, and I'm arguing that is a bug (as in, < 0.01% people are using
> hdparm correctly).
Generally speaking if you are using hdparm for tuning it means we need to
fix something in the ATA layer so you don't have to !
> I guess it would be safer not to reattach drives after power
> fail...
On Sat 2013-11-23 18:01:32, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
> >>Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >>>Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
> >>>since they've moved to using 3rd party flash
> > And the 520 doesn't claim this feature (look for "enhanced power loss
> > protection" at http://ark.intel.com/products/66248), so that wouldn't
> > explain these results anyway.
>
> Correct i think intel simply ignores CMD_FLUSH on that drive - no idea
> why an they fixed this for their 330,
On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
everyone who plans to use any flash storage,
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
> Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
> >since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
> >everyone who plans to use any flash storage, regardless of the
> >manufacturer, to
Hi Ric,
Am 23.11.2013 20:35, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data
Hi Ric,
Am 23.11.2013 20:35, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/23/2013 01:27 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
everyone who plans to use any flash storage, regardless of the
manufacturer, to do their
On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
everyone who plans to use any flash storage,
And the 520 doesn't claim this feature (look for enhanced power loss
protection at http://ark.intel.com/products/66248), so that wouldn't
explain these results anyway.
Correct i think intel simply ignores CMD_FLUSH on that drive - no idea
why an they fixed this for their 330, 530, DC
On Sat 2013-11-23 18:01:32, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now
Yes, and I'm arguing that is a bug (as in, 0.01% people are using
hdparm correctly).
Generally speaking if you are using hdparm for tuning it means we need to
fix something in the ATA layer so you don't have to !
I guess it would be safer not to reattach drives after power
fail... (also I
On 11/23/2013 07:22 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Sat 2013-11-23 18:01:32, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 11/23/2013 03:36 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Wed 2013-11-20 08:02:33, Howard Chu wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they aren't spec complicant. While I've seen countless
data
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they aren't spec complicant. While I've seen countless
data integrity bugs on lower end ATA SSDs I've not
Am 20.11.2013 16:55, schrieb J. Bruce Fields:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes
Am 20.11.2013 16:22, schrieb Chinmay V S:
Hi Stefan,
thanks for your great and detailed reply. I'm just wondering why an
intel 520 ssd degrades the speed just by 2% in case of O_SYNC. intel 530
the newer model and replacement for the 520 degrades speed by 75% like
the crucial m4.
The Intel DC
Am 20.11.2013 16:22, schrieb Chinmay V S:
Hi Stefan,
thanks for your great and detailed reply. I'm just wondering why an
intel 520 ssd degrades the speed just by 2% in case of O_SYNC. intel 530
the newer model and replacement for the 520 degrades speed by 75% like
the crucial m4.
The Intel DC
Am 20.11.2013 16:55, schrieb J. Bruce Fields:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they aren't spec complicant. While I've seen countless
data integrity bugs on lower end ATA SSDs I've not
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they aren't spec complicant. While I've seen countless
data
Hi Ric,
Am 22.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
On 11/22/2013 03:01 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
Hi Christoph,
Am 21.11.2013 11:11, schrieb Christoph Hellwig:
2. Some drives may implement CMD_FLUSH to return immediately i.e. no
guarantee the data is actually on disk.
In which case they
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:28 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41:54PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields
>> wrote:
>> > Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
>> >
>> >
>> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41:54PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
> >
> >
> >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
>
>
> http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/ssd-320-series-power-loss-data-protection-brief.html
>
> Which should in theory let them
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
everyone who plans to use any flash storage, regardless of the
manufacturer, to do their own explicit power fail testing (hitting the
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
> >
> > If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
> > the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes better use of the
> > internal
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
>
> If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
> the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes better use of the
> internal disk-cache to achieve better performance (as compared to the
> Intel 520). Thus
Hi Stefan,
> thanks for your great and detailed reply. I'm just wondering why an
> intel 520 ssd degrades the speed just by 2% in case of O_SYNC. intel 530
> the newer model and replacement for the 520 degrades speed by 75% like
> the crucial m4.
>
> The Intel DC S3500 instead delivers also
Hi ChinmayVS,
Am 20.11.2013 14:34, schrieb Chinmay V S:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> Christoph is bang on right. To further elaborate upon this, here is
> what is happening in the above case :
> By using DIRECT, SYNC/DSYNC flags on a block device (i.e. bypassing
> the file-systems layer), essentially you
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:04:15PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
> Note that SYNC/DSYNC on a filesystem(eg. ext2/3/4) does NOT issue a
> CMD_FLUSH. The "SYNC" via filesystem, simply guarantees that the data
> is sent to the disk and not really flushed to the disk.
While this used to be the case for
Hi Stefan,
Christoph is bang on right. To further elaborate upon this, here is
what is happening in the above case :
By using DIRECT, SYNC/DSYNC flags on a block device (i.e. bypassing
the file-systems layer), essentially you are enforcing a CMD_FLUSH on
each I/O command sent to the disk. This is
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> Can anyone explain to me why O_DSYNC for my app on linux is so slow?
Because FreeBSD ignores O_DSYNC on block devices, it never sends a FLUSH
to the device.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
Can anyone explain to me why O_DSYNC for my app on linux is so slow?
Because FreeBSD ignores O_DSYNC on block devices, it never sends a FLUSH
to the device.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Hi Stefan,
Christoph is bang on right. To further elaborate upon this, here is
what is happening in the above case :
By using DIRECT, SYNC/DSYNC flags on a block device (i.e. bypassing
the file-systems layer), essentially you are enforcing a CMD_FLUSH on
each I/O command sent to the disk. This is
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 07:04:15PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
Note that SYNC/DSYNC on a filesystem(eg. ext2/3/4) does NOT issue a
CMD_FLUSH. The SYNC via filesystem, simply guarantees that the data
is sent to the disk and not really flushed to the disk.
While this used to be the case for ext2
Hi ChinmayVS,
Am 20.11.2013 14:34, schrieb Chinmay V S:
Hi Stefan,
Christoph is bang on right. To further elaborate upon this, here is
what is happening in the above case :
By using DIRECT, SYNC/DSYNC flags on a block device (i.e. bypassing
the file-systems layer), essentially you are
Hi Stefan,
thanks for your great and detailed reply. I'm just wondering why an
intel 520 ssd degrades the speed just by 2% in case of O_SYNC. intel 530
the newer model and replacement for the 520 degrades speed by 75% like
the crucial m4.
The Intel DC S3500 instead delivers also nearly 98%
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes better use of the
internal disk-cache to achieve better performance (as compared to the
Intel 520). Thus
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes better use of the
internal disk-cache to
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
everyone who plans to use any flash storage, regardless of the
manufacturer, to do their own explicit power fail testing (hitting the
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/ssd-320-series-power-loss-data-protection-brief.html
Which should in theory
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41:54PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:28 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:41:54PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:25 PM, J. Bruce Fields bfie...@fieldses.org
wrote:
Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
52 matches
Mail list logo
