From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Carlos R. Mafra" Subject: Re: NILFS2 on an Intel X25-M SSD Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:47:18 +0100 Message-ID: <4B3C7326.4010002@gmail.com> References: <4B3A5D1F.9010002@gmail.com> <20091231.034629.85391956.ryusuke@osrg.net> Reply-To: NILFS Users mailing list Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=go5bo1QxGVTonyVPH21Y4WLQFzpmPXgJWyD60m3aS7Y=; b=bZAZvsAnzYIn0cHXRldxCtaWLaZPa5HqXSbrR3nVytRDuaUQOoX7kIy3INPlU83PN8 zQI7aMBgonbH3BjzpyAq89m88mvX8t5faF9QbmNuvF6eaiRnj7nlhPsjMzTuEcJbYUIc CNWRV81jFIZM6uybst5Ky9dfUzNvXfPrfCi5M= In-Reply-To: <20091231.034629.85391956.ryusuke-sG5X7nlA6pw@public.gmane.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Errors-To: users-bounces-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org To: Ryusuke Konishi Cc: linux-nilfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, users-JrjvKiOkagjYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org Am 30.12.2009 19:46, schrieb Ryusuke Konishi: > On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:48:47 +0100, "Carlos R. Mafra" wrote: >> Is there any specific tweak in NILFS2 to use with an SSD? Would you >> reccomend using NILFS2 on a SSD right now? >> >> Is the issue mentioned here >> >> https://www.nilfs.org/pipermail/users/2009-March/000514.html >> >> about excessive writing in the GC already fixed? >> That is the most pressing fear I have about NILFS2 for the SSD. > > Not yet, sorry. I'm working on some performance optimization for high > speed drives espacially for SSD. Revising GC is another priority, but > it would need some time. > > The massive I/O by the current garbage collector may shorten the life > of SSD. So, I don't recommend yet. Hmm, then I won't use NILFS2 on the SSD for now. I am testing it in an external HD for the last two days to get a feeling, and so far everything looks good and stable. It is a pity that the massive I/O problem kind of prevents putting it on the SSD. Naively I would think that the GC will always create some I/O that other filesystems don't have, by its very definition. Can you quantify by how much the current GC is writing in excess and what would be the acceptable numbers? > If you are not interested in snapshots, I think nilfs is not always a > good choice because high-end SSD drives are already doing lfs like > optimization internally. Intel SSD exactly looks like this sort of > drives though I'm using nilfs on X25-M and X25-E ;) The log-structured nature of the file system seemed a good thing for the health of the SSD, yes. But the snapshot feature is something interesting to have too and I was willing to have it :-)