archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tim Walker <>
To: Christoph Hellwig <>
Cc: Phillip Susi <>,
	Damien Le Moal <>,
	Jens Axboe <>,
	"" <>,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 17:00:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YSkVwSfQ/>

On  Friday, August 27, 2021 at 12:42:54 PM Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 02:28:58PM +0000, Tim Walker wrote:
>> There is nothing in the spec that requires the ranges to be contiguous
>> or non-overlapping.
>Yikes, that is a pretty stupid standard.  Almost as bad as allowing
>non-uniform sized non-power of two sized zones :)
>> It's easy to imagine a HDD architecture that allows multiple heads to access the same sectors on the disk. It's also easy to imagine a workload scenario where parallel access to the same disk could be useful. (Think of a typical storage design that sequentially writes new user data gradually filling the disk, while simultaneously supporting random user reads over the written data.)
>But for those drivers you do not actually need this scheme at all.
>Storage devices that support higher concurrency are bog standard with
>SSDs and if you want to go back storage arrays.  The only interesting
>case is when these ranges are separate so that the access can be carved
>up based on the boundary.  Now I don't want to give people ideas with
>overlapping but not identical, which would be just horrible.

Christoph - you are right. The main purpose, AFAIC, is to expose the parallel access capabilities within a LUN/SATA target due to multiple actuators. I hope the ranges are *always* contiguous and *never* overlapping.  But there's no telling what somebody has up their sleeve. 

Best regards,

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-27 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-27  7:50 [PATCH v6 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27  7:50 ` [PATCH v6 1/5] block: Add independent access ranges support Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27  7:50 ` [PATCH v6 2/5] scsi: sd: add concurrent positioning " Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27  7:50 ` [PATCH v6 3/5] libata: support concurrent positioning ranges log Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27  7:50 ` [PATCH v6 4/5] doc: document sysfs queue/independent_access_ranges attributes Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27  7:50 ` [PATCH v6 5/5] doc: Fix typo in request queue sysfs documentation Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27 13:58 ` [PATCH v6 0/5] Initial support for multi-actuator HDDs Phillip Susi
2021-08-27 14:28   ` Tim Walker
2021-08-27 16:41     ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-27 17:00       ` Tim Walker [this message]
2021-08-29 22:55       ` Damien Le Moal
2021-08-27 17:34     ` Phillip Susi
2021-08-29 22:50       ` Damien Le Moal

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:

* 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).