3 ms·
>. It doesn't seem right to put that in the filesystem itself It absolutely belongs in the filesystem. When you're doing RAID of any type across the devices,
by tw04 9y ago
>. It doesn't seem right to put that in the filesystem itself
It absolutely belongs in the filesystem. When you're doing RAID of any type across the devices, you need that layer to manage the underlying media. A single device view will never appropriately manage wear leveling and garbage collection.
There's a reason companies like NetApp have been working with drive vendors to have more control over the underlying media:
http://www.samsung.com/us/labs/pdfs/2016-08-fms-multi-stream-v4.pdf http://www.samsung.com/us/labs/pdfs/2016-08-fms-multi-stream...
- hvidgaard 9y agoIt's difficult problem to solve. If we do put it in the filesystem, we need some way for the filesystem to know how the NAND behaves. Otherwise the lowest common denominator dictates and nobody gain anything. With this in mind, I don't see why the disk cannot handle this in the firmware. As long as there is enough free NAND on the drive, it can manage wear level and GC just fine assuming that it gets TRIM commands.
- tw04 9y agoYou've just described why we have storage appliances for high performance and enterprise workloads, and why the drive to standardize always swings back around to customized software and hardware.