From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: Forza <forza@tnonline.net>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Select DUP metadata by default on single devices.
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2021 07:58:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52c5e29d-0ac3-e962-c915-b313d28c05d1@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9809e10.87861547.17bfad90f99@tnonline.net>
On 2021/9/19 05:38, Forza wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'd like to revisit the topic I opened on Github(*) a year ago, where I suggested that DUP metadata profile ought to be the default choice when doing mkfs.btrfs on single devices.
>
> Today we have much better write endurance on flash based media so the added writes should not matter in the grand scheme of things. Another factor is disk encryption where mkfs.btrfs cannot differentiate a plain SSD from a luks/dm-crypt device. Encryption effectively removes the possibility for the SSD to dedupe the metadata blocks.
>
> Ultimately, I think it is better to favour defaults that gives most users better fault tolerance, rather than using SINGLE mode for everyone because of the chance that some have deduplicating hardware (which would potentially negate the benefit of DUP metadata).
>
> One remark against DUP has been that both metadata copies would end up in the same erase block. However, I think that full erase block failures are in minority of the possible failure modes, at least from what I've seen on the mailing list and at #btrfs. It is more common to have single block errors, and for those we are protected with DUP metadata.
>
> Zygo made a very good in-depth explanation about several different failure modes in the Github issue.
>
> I would like voice my wish to change the defaults to DUP metadata on all single devices and I hope that the developers now can find consensus to make this change.
I'm totally into the idea of DUP as default meta.
The idea that *some* SSD does dedupe internally shouldn't be a reason to
prevent us from using DUP at all.
The internal mechanism should not affect how we use the disks,
especially we didn't even have a solid statistics on the percentage of
SSDs doing that.
The initial idea of such exception is already arguable to me at least.
And such exception is already causing damage in the wild, thus I see no
real benefit from SINGLE metadata on SSD.
I hope we can get more developers agree on this.
Thanks,
Qu
>
> * https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/issues/319
>
> Thanks.
>
> ~ Forza
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-18 23:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-18 21:38 Select DUP metadata by default on single devices Forza
2021-09-18 23:58 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2021-09-20 3:32 ` Chris Murphy
2021-09-19 12:19 ` Su Yue
2021-09-20 9:09 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 10:46 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-20 11:23 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 11:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2021-09-20 11:38 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 11:30 ` David Sterba
2021-09-20 11:12 ` Steven Davies
2021-09-20 11:32 ` David Sterba
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=52c5e29d-0ac3-e962-c915-b313d28c05d1@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=forza@tnonline.net \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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
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).