From: Austin S Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
To: russell@coker.com.au, peer.loz@gmx.net
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is it safe or useful to use NOCOW flag and autodefrag mount option at same time?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:56:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5506E0FB.6090006@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201503162246.12052.russell@coker.com.au>
On 2015-03-16 07:46, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2015, peer.loz@gmx.net wrote:
>> Following common recommendations [1], I use these mount options on my
>> main developing machine: noatime,autodefrag. This is desktop machine and
>> it works well so far. Now, I'm also going to install several KVM virtual
>> machines on this system. I want to use qcow2 files stored on SSD with a
>> btrfs on it. In order to avoid bad performance with the VMs, I want to
>> disable the Copy-On-Write mechanism on the storage directory of my VM
>> images as for example described in [2].
>
> Why do you expect a great performance benefit from that?
>
> As there is no real seek time SSDs probably won't give you much benefit from
> defragmenting. As for disabling CoW, that will reduce the number of writes
> (as you don't need to write the metadata all the way up the tree) and improve
> performance, but not as much as on spinning media where you need to do seeks
> for all that.
>
> Finally having checksums on everything to give the possibility of recognising
> corrupt data is a really good feature and something that you want on your VM
> images.
>
> So far I have never even tried disabling CoW or using auto defragment. All of
> my BTRFS filesystems have either low performance or run on SSD.
>
Personally, I've found that autodefrag _does_ provide a small
performance improvement on SSD's, because reading one larg extent takes
less time than reading multiple small ones. The caveat here is you want
to make sure that at least the 'ssd' mount option is set as well, and
run fstrim on a roughly weekly basis.
NOCOW however is a Bad Idea (TM) on most 'consumer grade' SSD's, as it
reduces the effectiveness of many of the wear-leveling algorithms used
on them. On Enterprise quality SSD's (and recent Intel SSD's) though,
it shouldn't be as much of an issue as they are much smarter, and the
good ones even have built in ECC's to catch data corruption.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-16 13:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-14 18:36 Is it safe or useful to use NOCOW flag and autodefrag mount option at same time? peer.loz
2015-03-15 9:09 ` Wang Shilong
2015-03-17 23:01 ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2015-03-17 23:16 ` Chris Murphy
2015-03-18 1:22 ` Duncan
2015-03-16 11:46 ` Russell Coker
2015-03-16 13:56 ` Austin S Hemmelgarn [this message]
2015-03-17 22:00 ` Jean-Peer Lorenz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5506E0FB.6090006@gmail.com \
--to=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peer.loz@gmx.net \
--cc=russell@coker.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.