From: Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com> To: Bart Van Assche <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Ric Wheeler <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Linux FS Devel <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded!) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 19:30:12 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YMEItMNXG2bHgJEemail@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:05:22AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/9/21 3:53 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > Consumer devices are pushed to use the highest capacity emmc class > > devices, but they have horrible write durability. > > > > At the same time, we layer on top of these devices our normal stack - > > device mapper and ext4 or f2fs are common configurations today - which > > causes write amplification and can burn out storage even faster. I think > > it would be useful to discuss how we can minimize the write > > amplification when we need to run on these low end parts & see where the > > stack needs updating. > > > > Great background paper which inspired me to spend time tormenting emmc > > parts is: > > > > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~porter/pubs/hotos17-final29.pdf > > Without having read that paper, has zoned storage been considered? F2FS > already supports zoned block devices. I'm not aware of a better solution > to reduce write amplification for flash devices. Maybe I'm missing > something? 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" > More information is available in this paper: > https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3458336.3465300. > > Thanks, > > Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-09 18:30 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-09 10:53 Ric Wheeler 2021-06-09 18:05 ` Bart Van Assche 2021-06-09 18:30 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message] 2021-06-09 18:47 ` Bart Van Assche 2021-06-10 0:16 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-06-10 1:11 ` Ric Wheeler 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
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=YMEItMNXG2bHgJEemail@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] durability vs performance for flash devices (especially embedded'\!')' \ /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
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).