From: Ric Wheeler <email@example.com>
To: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
Bart Van Assche <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com>
Linux FS Devel <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded!)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 21:11:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 6/9/21 8:16 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2021/06/10 3:47, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 6/9/21 11:30 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> maybe you should read the paper.
>>> " Thiscomparison demonstrates that using F2FS, a flash-friendly file
>>> sys-tem, does not mitigate the wear-out problem, except inasmuch asit
>>> inadvertently rate limitsallI/O to the device"
>> It seems like my email was not clear enough? What I tried to make clear
>> is that I think that there is no way to solve the flash wear issue with
>> the traditional block interface. I think that F2FS in combination with
>> the zone interface is an effective solution.
>> What is also relevant in this context is that the "Flash drive lifespan
>> is a problem" paper was published in 2017. I think that the first
>> commercial SSDs with a zone interface became available at a later time
>> (summer of 2020?).
> Yes, zone support in the block layer and f2fs was added with kernel 4.10
> released in Feb 2017. So the authors likely did not consider that as a solution,
> especially considering that at the time, it was all about SMR HDDs only. Now, we
> do have ZNS and things like SD-Express coming which may allow NVMe/ZNS on even
> the cheapest of consumer devices.
> That said, I do not think that f2fs is not yet an ideal solution as is since all
> its metadata need update in-place, so are subject to the drive implementation of
> FTL/weir leveling. And the quality of this varies between devices and vendors...
> btrfs zone support improves that as even the super blocks are not updated in
> place on zoned devices. Everything is copy-on-write, sequential write into
> zones. While the current block allocator is rather simple for now, it could be
> tweaked to add some weir leveling awareness, eventually (per zone weir leveling
> is something much easier to do inside the drive though, so the host should not
> In the context of zoned storage, the discussion could be around how to best
> support file systems. Do we keep modifying one file system after another to
> support zones, or implement weir leveling ? That is *very* hard to do and
> sometimes not reasonably feasible depending on the FS design.
> I do remember Dave Chinner talk back in 2018 LSF/MM (was it ?) where he
> discussed the idea of having block allocation moved out of FSes and turned into
> a kind of library common to many file systems. In the context of consumer flash
> weir leveling, and eventually zones (likely with some remapping needed), this
> may be something interesting to discuss again.
Some of the other bits that make this hard in the embedded space include
layering on top of device mapper - using dm verity for example - and our usual
problem of having apps that drive too many small IO's down to service sqlite
Looking to get some measurements done to show the write amplification - measure
the amount of writes done in total by applications - and what that translates
into for device requests. Anything done for metadata, logging, etc all counts as
"write amplification" when viewed this way.
Useful to try and figure out what the best case durability of parts would be for
Measuring write amplification inside of a device is often possible as well so we
could end up getting a pretty clear picture.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-10 1:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-09 10:53 [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded!) Ric Wheeler
2021-06-09 18:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-06-09 18:30 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-06-09 18:47 ` Bart Van Assche
2021-06-10 0:16 ` Damien Le Moal
2021-06-10 1:11 ` Ric Wheeler [this message]
2021-06-10 1:20 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 11:07 ` Tim Walker
2021-06-10 16:38 ` Keith Busch
[not found] ` <CAOtxgyeRf=+grEoHxVLEaSM=Yfx4KrSG5q96SmztpoWfP=QrDg@mail.gmail.com>
2021-06-10 16:22 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 17:06 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-06-10 17:25 ` Ric Wheeler
2021-06-10 17:57 ` Viacheslav Dubeyko
2021-06-13 20:41 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] SSDFS: LFS file system without GC operations + NAND flash devices lifetime prolongation Viacheslav Dubeyko
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).