From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lazybastard.de ([212.112.238.170] helo=longford.logfs.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.68 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1K3axG-0000vS-Dg for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:09:54 +0000 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:09:44 +0200 From: =?utf-8?B?SsO2cm4=?= Engel To: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: big flash disks? Message-ID: <20080603180944.GE1224@logfs.org> References: <20080601184239.GA11135@shareable.org> <1212386359.31023.154.camel@sauron> <20080602082346.GB20259@logfs.org> <20080602104330.GD31032@shareable.org> <20080602115538.GC21359@logfs.org> <20080602123217.GA2679@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080602123217.GA2679@shareable.org> Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2 June 2008 13:32:18 +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > If they can do 4k writes, and you cannot, it sounds like the SSDs you > have used are very different to the SSDs they have used. Is that > right? It isn't. Their SSDs have shitty performance for 4k random writes. That's the entire point of their product. They reorder the data, turning random 4k writes into aligned eraseblock-sized writes. After that reordering the performance goes way up. Iirc at least one SSD they used must have 1MB erasesize to explain the performance boost. Jörn -- Audacity augments courage; hesitation, fear. -- Publilius Syrus