linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers ...
@ 2012-05-24 15:30 Igor Podlesny
  2012-05-25  0:14 ` NeilBrown
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Igor Podlesny @ 2012-05-24 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-raid

   ... then several "stand-alone" RAIDs on the same HDDs? -- Say, when
using write intent bitmaps.

-- 
End of message. Next message?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers ...
  2012-05-24 15:30 Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers Igor Podlesny
@ 2012-05-25  0:14 ` NeilBrown
  2012-05-25  1:52   ` Igor Podlesny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2012-05-25  0:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: for.poige+linux; +Cc: linux-raid

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 304 bytes --]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:30:54 +0800 Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@gmail.com>
wrote:

>    ... then several "stand-alone" RAIDs on the same HDDs? -- Say, when
> using write intent bitmaps.
> 

I'm not sure you question exactly makes sense, but the answer would be "no"
if it did :-)

NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers ...
  2012-05-25  0:14 ` NeilBrown
@ 2012-05-25  1:52   ` Igor Podlesny
  2012-05-25  2:23     ` NeilBrown
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Igor Podlesny @ 2012-05-25  1:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: NeilBrown; +Cc: linux-raid

On 25 May 2012 08:14, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:30:54 +0800 Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>    ... then several "stand-alone" RAIDs on the same HDDs? -- Say, when
>> using write intent bitmaps.
>>
>
> I'm not sure you question exactly makes sense, but the answer would be "no"
> if it did :-)

   Well, due to disks seeks are expensive, hot data locality is
preferable and valuable thing, isn't it?
   And it makes sense not only for WIB, but other frequent metadata
updates, doesn't it?

-- 
End of message. Next message?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers ...
  2012-05-25  1:52   ` Igor Podlesny
@ 2012-05-25  2:23     ` NeilBrown
  2012-05-25  2:41       ` Igor Podlesny
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: NeilBrown @ 2012-05-25  2:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: for.poige+linux; +Cc: linux-raid

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1547 bytes --]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:52:52 +0800 Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 25 May 2012 08:14, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 May 2012 23:30:54 +0800 Igor Podlesny <for.poige+linux@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>    ... then several "stand-alone" RAIDs on the same HDDs? -- Say, when
> >> using write intent bitmaps.
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure you question exactly makes sense, but the answer would be "no"
> > if it did :-)
> 
>    Well, due to disks seeks are expensive, hot data locality is
> preferable and valuable thing, isn't it?
>    And it makes sense not only for WIB, but other frequent metadata
> updates, doesn't it?
> 

Thank you for fleshing out your question a bit.  It is always useful to state
your assumptions where asking a question as it makes it easier to understand
and answer the question.

The general metadata isn't updated very often - not often enough to justify
any particular concern for where it is placed.  For a 'reshape' it can be
updated more often, but that is an unusual situation.

bitmap metadata certainly can be updated often, but there is no container
format currently supported which makes use of write-intent bitmaps, so
thinking about containers for bitmaps is not relevant.

If it were, it would make sense to keep the bitmap close to the data that it
described, so having a container arrangement would not be better than
individual arrays.  It maybe be worse depending on the particular details.

Does that make sense?

NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers ...
  2012-05-25  2:23     ` NeilBrown
@ 2012-05-25  2:41       ` Igor Podlesny
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Igor Podlesny @ 2012-05-25  2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: NeilBrown; +Cc: linux-raid

On 25 May 2012 10:23, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
[...]
> bitmap metadata certainly can be updated often, but there is no container
> format currently supported which makes use of write-intent bitmaps, so
> thinking about containers for bitmaps is not relevant.

   Well, can it be adopted by allocation sub-array for WIB then, for e. g.?

> If it were, it would make sense to keep the bitmap close to the data that it
> described, so having a container arrangement would not be better than
> individual arrays.  It maybe be worse depending on the particular details.

   Yep, with some kind of updates merging it could be faster, I guess.

   BTW, as it seems the most optimal location of WIB is in the middle
of corresponding datum -- thus
seeks length are always less or equal (datum length 1/2). Have you
considered this layout? :-)

> Does that make sense?

   I hope so. :)

-- 
End of message. Next message?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2012-05-25  2:41 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-05-24 15:30 Hi! Is "container" more efficient in terms of I/O op. numbers Igor Podlesny
2012-05-25  0:14 ` NeilBrown
2012-05-25  1:52   ` Igor Podlesny
2012-05-25  2:23     ` NeilBrown
2012-05-25  2:41       ` Igor Podlesny

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).