linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@inwind.it>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Zygo Blaxell <zblaxell@furryterror.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: raid with a variable stripe size
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:10:01 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1879b5b7-47a9-4f4f-e875-1f94bd6283fa@inwind.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <657fcefe-4e6c-ced3-a3c9-2dc1f77e1404@cn.fujitsu.com>

On 2016-11-29 01:48, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> For example, if sectorsize is 64K, and we make stripe len to 32K, and use 3 disc RAID5, we can avoid such write hole problem.
> Withouth modification to extent/chunk allocator.
> 
> And I'd prefer to make stripe len mkfs time parameter, not possible to modify after mkfs. To make things easy.

This is like the Zygo idea: make the sector_size = (ndisk-1) * strpe_len... If this could be possible to implement per BG basis you answered the Zygo question. Of course when the number of the disk increases the disk space wasting increases too. But for small RAID5/6 (4/5 disk) it could be an acceptable trade-off.

Anyway on the basis that SSD is the future of storage, I think that our thoughts about how avoid a RMW cycle don't make sense. The SSD firmware remaps sectors, so what we think as "simple write" may hide a RMW because the erase sector are bigger than the disk sector (4k ?).

> 
> Thanks,
> Qu


-- 
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D  17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5

      parent reply	other threads:[~2016-11-29 18:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-18 18:15 RFC: raid with a variable stripe size Goffredo Baroncelli
2016-11-18 20:32 ` Janos Toth F.
2016-11-18 20:51   ` Timofey Titovets
2016-11-18 21:38     ` Janos Toth F.
2016-11-19  8:55   ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2016-11-18 20:34 ` Timofey Titovets
2016-11-19  8:59   ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2016-11-19  8:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-19  9:13   ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2016-11-29  0:48 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-29  3:53   ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-29  4:12     ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-29  4:55       ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-29  5:49         ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-29 18:47           ` Janos Toth F.
2016-11-29 22:51           ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-29  5:51   ` Chris Murphy
2016-11-29  6:03     ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-29 18:19       ` Goffredo Baroncelli
2016-11-29 22:54       ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-29 18:10   ` Goffredo Baroncelli [this message]

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=1879b5b7-47a9-4f4f-e875-1f94bd6283fa@inwind.it \
    --to=kreijack@inwind.it \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=zblaxell@furryterror.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).