From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Lehmann Subject: Re: SMR drive test 2; 128GB partition; no obvious corruption, much more sane behaviour, weird overprovisioning Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:43:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20150923234323.GF3463@schmorp.de> References: <20150810203106.GA4575@jaegeuk-mac02> <20150920235901.GA7017@schmorp.de> <20150921081748.GA5637@schmorp.de> <20150921081937.GA5718@schmorp.de> <20150921095806.GA6809@schmorp.de> <20150923011239.GA32520@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com> <20150923041523.GB4946@schmorp.de> <20150923060037.GA6667@schmorp.de> <011201d0f5dd$c3a4f650$4aeee2f0$@samsung.com> <20150923233022.GD3463@schmorp.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1ZethE-0004ME-Am for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:43:32 +0000 Received: from mail.nethype.de ([5.9.56.24]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1ZethD-0005zU-2P for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 23 Sep 2015 23:43:32 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150923233022.GD3463@schmorp.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Chao Yu Cc: 'Jaegeuk Kim' , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 01:30:22AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > > One thing I note is that gc_min_sleep_time is not be set in your script, > > so in some condition gc may still do the sleep with gc_min_sleep_time (30 > > seconds by default) instead of gc_max_sleep_time which we expect. > > Ah, sorry, I actually set gc_min_sleep_time to 100, but forgot to include > it. Sorry, that sounded confusing - I set it to 100 in previous tests, and forgot to include it, so it was running with 30000. When experimenting, I actually do get the gc to do more frequent operations now. Is there any obvious harm setting it to a very low value (such as 100 or 10)? I assume all it does is have less time buffer between the last operation and the gc starting. When I write in batches, or when I know the fs will be idle, there shouldn't be any harm, performance wise, of letting it work all the time. -- The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG -----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net ----==-- _ generation ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schmorp@schmorp.de -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor Your Dynamic Infrastructure at Any Scale With Datadog! Get real-time metrics from all of your servers, apps and tools in one place. SourceForge users - Click here to start your Free Trial of Datadog now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=241902991&iu=/4140