Hi Paul, Thank you for your advice. Actually, I currently have ideas to implement database management (like list, tree), and dynamic memory allocation in hardware to accelerate the file system operations. I still do not have a clear picture about which part is implemented by processor (as your advice) and which part is accelerated by hardware. I now need to understand the operation of btrfs source code to determine. I hope that one of you can help me and if it work, we can start-up our own business.
Thanks. Nguyen. On 5/19/14, Paul Jones <p...@pauljones.id.au> wrote: > Hi Nguyen, > Perhaps a better idea would be to use a low-cost low-power som module to > run Linux and btrfs code, and use an FPGA/ASIC to offload > compression/encryption/checksums and to possibly act as a raid controller. > Since btrfs will be under heavy development for the foreseeable future I > doubt it would be a good idea to lock it into silicon. Using this approach > the mature technologies can be hardware accelerated, and the software parts > are available for easy upgrades. > It also significantly reduces risk for your project, and VCs like that sort > of thing! > > Regards, > Paul. > > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org > [mailto:linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Le Nguyen Tran > Sent: Monday, 19 May 2014 9:07 PM > To: Fajar A. Nugraha > Cc: linux-btrfs > Subject: Re: Convert btrfs software code to ASIC > > Hi Nugraha, > > Thank you so much for your information. Frankly speaking, no one can confirm > a new start-up idea works or not. The probability of failure is always high. > However, the benefit if it works is also very high. > > I do not plan to exactly replicate the C source code. There are always some > techniques in ASIC design to implement which are not the same as in software > (less flexible but faster). > > The main advantages of my proposed chip are: > - Very high performance: Performance of ASIC chip is normally more than 10x > higher than performance of processors because processor run only 1-4 > instructions sequentially. That is very suitable for server when there are > many requests from users. > - Low-cost: In side the chip, we can customized for our function only. > In my plan, we do not need cache (which covers a very large area), and we > can use low cost technology 0.18um. > - Low-power: Processors run instructions sequentially and access memory ( or > cache). As a result, they consume much more power than ASIC chip (also can > be 10x higher). > > Actually ARM processors like mediatek cannot be comparable with ASIC chip. > However, as I mentioned, it is just my draft idea. I still to work more to > verify my idea. > > Thanks. > > Nguyen. > > On 5/19/14, Fajar A. Nugraha <l...@fajar.net> wrote: >> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Le Nguyen Tran <lntran...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am Nguyen. I am not a software development engineer but an IC >>> (chip) development engineer. I have a plan to develop an IC >>> controller for Network Attached Storage (NAS). The main idea is >>> converting software code into hardware implementation. Because the >>> chip is customized for NAS, its performance is high, and its cost is >>> lower than using micro processor like Atom or Xeon (for servers). >>> >>> I plan to use btrfs as the file system specification for my NAS. The >>> main point is that I need to understand the btrfs sofware code in >>> order to covert them into hardware implementation. I am wandering if >>> any of you can help me. If we can make the chip in a good shape, we >>> can start up a company and have our own business. >> >> I'm not sure if that's a good idea. >> >> AFAIK btrfs depends a lot on other linux subsystems (e.g. vfs, block, >> etc). Rather than converting/reimplementing everything, if your aim is >> lower cost, you might have easier time using something like a mediatek >> SOC (the ones used on smartphones) and run a custom-built linux with >> btrfs support on it. >> >> For documentation, >> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page#Developer_documentat >> ion >> is probably the best place to start >> >> -- >> Fajar >> > -- > 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 > -- 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
