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
prev parent 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).