From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Large block for I/O
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2023 05:13:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZYUbB3brQ0K3rP97@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5c356222-fe9e-41b0-b7fe-218fbcde4573@acm.org>
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:33:08PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> I'm interested in this topic. But I'm wondering whether the disadvantages of
> large blocks will be covered? Some NAND storage vendors are less than
> enthusiast about increasing the logical block size beyond 4 KiB because it
> increases the size of many writes to the device and hence increases write
> amplification.
I've been mulling this over for a few hours and I don't really understand
it. The push for larger block sizes is coming from (some) storage
vendors. If it doesn't make sense for (other) storage vendors, they
don't have to do it. Just like nobody is forced to ship shingled drives,
or vertical NAND or four-bit-per-cell or fill their drives with helium.
Vendors do it if it makes sense for them, and don't if it doesn't.
It clearly solves a problem (and the one I think it's solving is the
size of the FTL map). But I can't see why we should stop working on it,
just because not all drive manufacturers want to support it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-22 5:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <7970ad75-ca6a-34b9-43ea-c6f67fe6eae6@iogearbox.net>
2023-12-20 10:01 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals Daniel Borkmann
2023-12-20 15:03 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Large block for I/O Hannes Reinecke
2023-12-21 20:33 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-21 20:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-21 21:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-12-22 5:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-12-22 5:13 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2023-12-22 5:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-01-08 19:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-01-08 19:35 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-02-22 18:45 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-02-25 23:09 ` Dave Chinner
2024-02-26 15:25 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-07 1:59 ` Luis Chamberlain
2024-03-07 5:31 ` Dave Chinner
2024-03-07 7:29 ` Luis Chamberlain
2023-12-22 8:23 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2023-12-22 12:29 ` Hannes Reinecke
2023-12-22 13:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-22 15:10 ` Keith Busch
2023-12-22 16:06 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-12-25 8:55 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2023-12-25 8:12 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2024-02-23 16:41 ` Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)
2024-01-17 13:37 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals [Reminder] Daniel Borkmann
2024-02-14 13:03 ` LSF/MM/BPF: 2024: Call for Proposals [Final Reminder] Daniel Borkmann
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=ZYUbB3brQ0K3rP97@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lsf-pc@lists.linuxfoundation.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).