linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@gmail.com>,
	lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.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: <YMEItMNXG2bHgJE+@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e1ed05f-4e83-7c84-dee6-ac0160be8f5c@acm.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.

  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=YMEItMNXG2bHgJE+@casper.infradead.org \
    --to=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ricwheeler@gmail.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).