linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Linux RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on using SSD
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:37:23 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <18892.22531.392563.258229@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: message from Bill Davidsen on Thursday March 26

On Thursday March 26, davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
> I'm building a fairly aggressive machine for both a backup host for 
> virtual machines and spare time development platform, compile engine and 
> testbed both. I want to get cost effective use from an SSD unit, and I 
> propose to use a 32GB unit as follows: for the root filesystem, 12GB, 
> which should hold all the usual root things, and 16GB for swap (12GB 
> RAM, and I want boot and/or hibernate to happen NOW). The remaining 
> space I think might be used for various high impact things, and one of 
> those with speeding raid.
> 
> If I were to create a small raid device, raid1, made of the 4GB Ssd and 
> 4GB of SATA space, if I made the SATA write-mostly and write-behind, and 
> put the journal for my raid arrays (and bitmaps?) that seems likely to 
> provide a significant performance gain in small storage.
> 
> Am I missing anything here? Is there an obvious drawback I'm missing?


I'd probably just put the journal on the SSD and mount my ext3
filesystem data=journal

That has a similar effect to raid1/write-behind in that data is
written to both but we only wait for the write to the SSD to
complete.  But as it is done at the filesystem level - and the
filesystem has a much better idea what it is doing - you would expect
to get much more efficient results.  e.g. less wasted memory, much
larger amount of data that is safe of SSD but still trickling out to
the HD.

I guess there might be a small lost in data safety as is the journal
device fails you lose your journal.  But that is only 5 seconds of
data, and I suspect SSDs don't suffer from many of the failure modes
of HDs.

.... I wonder if it would make sense to mirror two partitions of the
one SSD?? It would save you from media errors and only expose you to
total-drive-death errors.


NeilBrown

  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-03-27  4:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-03-26 23:09 Thoughts on using SSD Bill Davidsen
2009-03-27  0:51 ` David Rees
2009-03-27  4:31   ` Neil Brown
2009-03-27  4:37 ` Neil Brown [this message]
2009-04-03 23:28   ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2009-04-09 22:26   ` Bill Davidsen
2009-04-10  9:14     ` Neil Brown

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=18892.22531.392563.258229@notabene.brown \
    --to=neilb@suse.de \
    --cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.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).