On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:39:05 +0100 Sander <san...@humilis.net> wrote:
> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote (ao): > > Honestly I would just drop the idea of an SSD option simply because the > > vendors implement all kinds of neat strategies in their devices. So in the > > end > > you cannot really tell if the option does something constructive and not > > destructive in combination with a SSD controller. > > My understanding of the ssd mount option is also that the fs doens't try > to do all kinds of smart (and potential expensive) things which make > sense for rotating media to reduce seeks and the like. > > Sander Such an optimization sounds valid on first sight. But re-think closely: how does the fs really know about seeks needed during some operation? If your disk is a single plate one your seeks are completely different from multi plate. So even a simple case is more or less unpredictable. If you consider a RAID or SAN as device base it should be clear that trying to optimize for certain device types is just a fake. What does that tell you? The optimization was a pure loss of work hours in the first place. In fact if you look at this list a lot of talks going on are highly academic and have no real usage scenario. Sometimes trying to be super-smart is indeed not useful (for a fs) ... -- Regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
