Yes, I don't think one could find any NAND based SSDs with <4k page size on the market right now (even =4k is hard to get) and 4k is becoming the new norm for HDDs. However, some HDD manufacturers continue to offer drives with 512 byte sectors (I think it's possible to get new ones in sizable quantities if you need them).
I am aware it wouldn't solve the problem for >=4k sector devices unless you are ready to balance frequently. But I think it would still be a lot better to waste padding space on 4k stripes than, say, 64k stripes until you can balance the new block groups. And, if the space waste ratio is tolerable, then this could be an automatic background task as soon as an individual block group or their totals get to a high waste ratio. I suggest this as a quick temporal workaround because it could be cheap in terms of work if the above mentioned functionalities (stripe size change, auto-balance) would be worked on anyway (regardless of RAID-5/6 specific issues) until some better solution is realized (probably through a lot more work over a lot longer development period). RAID-5 isn't really optimal for a huge amount of disks (URE during rebuild issue...), so the temporary space waste is probably <=8x per unbalanced block groups (which are 1Gb or may be ~10Gb if I am not mistaken, so usually <<8x of the whole available space). But may be my guesstimates are wrong here. On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Timofey Titovets <nefelim...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2016-11-18 23:32 GMT+03:00 Janos Toth F. <toth.f.ja...@gmail.com>: >> Based on the comments of this patch, stripe size could theoretically >> go as low as 512 byte: >> https://mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg56011.html >> If these very small (0.5k-2k) stripe sizes could really work (it's >> possible to implement such changes and it does not degrade performance >> too much - or at all - to keep it so low), we could use RAID-5(/6) on >> <=9(/10) disks with 512 byte physical sectors (assuming 4k filesystem >> sector size + 4k node size, although I am not sure if node size is >> really important here) without having to worry about RMW, extra space >> waste or additional fragmentation. >> >> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli <kreij...@libero.it> >> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> these are only my thoughts; no code here, but I would like to share it >>> hoping that it could be useful. >>> >>> As reported several times by Zygo (and others), one of the problem of >>> raid5/6 is the write hole. Today BTRFS is not capable to address it. >>> >>> The problem is that the stripe size is bigger than the "sector size" (ok >>> sector is not the correct word, but I am referring to the basic unit of >>> writing on the disk, which is 4k or 16K in btrfs). >>> So when btrfs writes less data than the stripe, the stripe is not filled; >>> when it is filled by a subsequent write, a RMW of the parity is required. >>> >>> On the best of my understanding (which could be very wrong) ZFS try to >>> solve this issue using a variable length stripe. >>> >>> On BTRFS this could be achieved using several BGs (== block group or >>> chunk), one for each stripe size. >>> >>> For example, if a filesystem - RAID5 is composed by 4 DISK, the filesystem >>> should have three BGs: >>> BG #1,composed by two disks (1 data+ 1 parity) >>> BG #2 composed by three disks (2 data + 1 parity) >>> BG #3 composed by four disks (3 data + 1 parity). >>> >>> If the data to be written has a size of 4k, it will be allocated to the BG >>> #1. >>> If the data to be written has a size of 8k, it will be allocated to the BG >>> #2 >>> If the data to be written has a size of 12k, it will be allocated to the BG >>> #3 >>> If the data to be written has a size greater than 12k, it will be allocated >>> to the BG3, until the data fills a full stripes; then the remainder will be >>> stored in BG #1 or BG #2. >>> >>> >>> To avoid unbalancing of the disk usage, each BG could use all the disks, >>> even if a stripe uses less disks: i.e >>> >>> DISK1 DISK2 DISK3 DISK4 >>> S1 S1 S1 S2 >>> S2 S2 S3 S3 >>> S3 S4 S4 S4 >>> [....] >>> >>> Above is show a BG which uses all the four disks, but has a stripe which >>> spans only 3 disks. >>> >>> >>> Pro: >>> - btrfs already is capable to handle different BG in the filesystem, only >>> the allocator has to change >>> - no more RMW are required (== higher performance) >>> >>> Cons: >>> - the data will be more fragmented >>> - the filesystem, will have more BGs; this will require time-to time a >>> re-balance. But is is an issue which we already know (even if may be not >>> 100% addressed). >>> >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> BR >>> G.Baroncelli >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijackATinwind.it> >>> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5 >>> -- >>> 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 > > AFAIK all drives at now use 4k physical sector size, and use 512b only > logically > So it's create another RWM Read 4k -> Modify 512b -> Write 4k, instead > of just write 512b. > > -- > Have a nice day, > Timofey. -- 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
