From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marco Stornelli Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2012 09:09:30 +0200 Message-ID: <50712AAA.5030807@gmail.com> References: <415E76CC-A53D-4643-88AB-3D7D7DC56F98@dubeyko.com> <9DE65D03-D4EA-4B32-9C1D-1516EAE50E23@dubeyko.com> <1349553966.12699.132.camel@kjgkr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Vyacheslav Dubeyko , jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com, Al Viro , tytso@mit.edu, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chur.lee@samsung.com, cm224.lee@samsung.com, jooyoung.hwang@samsung.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Jaegeuk Kim Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1349553966.12699.132.camel@kjgkr> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Il 06/10/2012 22:06, Jaegeuk Kim ha scritto: > 2012-10-06 (=ED=86=A0), 17:54 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko: >> Hi Jaegeuk, > > Hi. > We know each other, right? :) > >> >>> From: =EA=B9=80=EC=9E=AC=EA=B7=B9 >>> To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, 'Theodore Ts'o' , gre= gkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chur.lee@samsung= =2Ecom, cm224.lee@samsung.com, jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com, jooyoung.hwang@= samsung.com >>> Subject: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system >>> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:55:07 +0900 >>> >>> This is a new patch set for the f2fs file system. >>> >>> What is F2FS? >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >>> >>> NAND flash memory-based storage devices, such as SSD, eMMC, and SD = cards, have >>> been widely being used for ranging from mobile to server systems. S= ince they are >>> known to have different characteristics from the conventional rotat= ional disks, >>> a file system, an upper layer to the storage device, should adapt t= o the changes >>> from the sketch. >>> >>> F2FS is a new file system carefully designed for the NAND flash mem= ory-based storage >>> devices. We chose a log structure file system approach, but we trie= d to adapt it >>> to the new form of storage. Also we remedy some known issues of the= very old log >>> structured file system, such as snowball effect of wandering tree a= nd high cleaning >>> overhead. >>> >>> Because a NAND-based storage device shows different characteristics= according to >>> its internal geometry or flash memory management scheme aka FTL, we= add various >>> parameters not only for configuring on-disk layout, but also for se= lecting allocation >>> and cleaning algorithms. >>> >> >> What about F2FS performance? Could you share benchmarking results of= the new file system? >> >> It is very interesting the case of aged file system. How is GC's imp= lementation efficient? Could you share benchmarking results for the ver= y aged file system state? >> > > Although I have benchmark results, currently I'd like to see the resu= lts > measured by community as a black-box. As you know, the results are ve= ry > dependent on the workloads and parameters, so I think it would be bet= ter > to see other results for a while. > Thanks, > 1) Actually it's a strange approach. If you have got any results you=20 should share them with the community explaining how (the workload, hw=20 and so on) your benchmark works and the specific condition. I really=20 don't like the approach "I've got the results but I don't say anything,= =20 if you want a number, do it yourself". 2) For a new filesystem you should send the patches to linux-fsdevel. 3) It's not clear the pros/cons of your filesystem, can you share with=20 us the main differences with the current fs already in mainline? Or is=20 it a company secret? Marco