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, 10 Apr 2009 19:14:12 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <18911.3556.260172.777291@notabene.brown> (raw)
In-Reply-To: message from Bill Davidsen on Thursday April 9

On Thursday April 9, davidsen@tmr.com wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > 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.
> >   
> 
> But I think for raid in general you would benefit from having the bitmap 
> on SSD as well. In my dreams I also put the inodes on that SSD, and 
> everything runs 10x faster. Unfortunately no f/s seems to offer this.

Sounds like hierarchical storage management at a different level.
Keep the metadata on a fast device and allow the data to migrate on to
slow devices.
I'm sure we'll get there one day.... if only there were more hours in
the day :-)

NeilBrown

      reply	other threads:[~2009-04-10  9:14 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
2009-04-03 23:28   ` Lars Marowsky-Bree
2009-04-09 22:26   ` Bill Davidsen
2009-04-10  9:14     ` Neil Brown [this message]

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=18911.3556.260172.777291@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).