Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressedby kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

2006-07-31 Thread David Masover

David Lang wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:


Aha, so back to the usual argument:  UPS!  It takes a fraction of a 
second to flush that cache.


which does absolutly no good if someone trips over the power cord, the 
fuse blows in the power supply, someone yanks the drive out of the 
hot-swap bay, etc.


Power supply fuse...  Yeah, it happens.  Drives die, too.  This seems 
fairly uncommon.  And dear God, please tell me anyone smart enough to 
set up a UPS would also be smart enough to make tripping over the power 
cord rare or impossible.


My box has a cable that runs down behind a desk, between the desk and 
the wall.  Power strip is on the floor, where a UPS will be when I get 
around to buying one.  If someone kicks any cable, it would be where the 
UPS hits the wall -- but that's also behind the same desk.



as I understand it flash reads are fast (ram speeds), but writes are 
pretty slow (comparable or worse to spinning media)


writing to a ram cache, but having a flash drive behind it doesn't gain 
you any protection. and I don't think you need it for reads


Does gain you protection if you're not using the RAM cache, if you're 
that paranoid.  I don't know if it's cheaper than RAM, but more read 
cache is always better.  And losing power seems a lot less likely than 
crashing, especially on a Windows laptop, so it does make sense as a 
product.  And a laptop, having a battery, will give you a good bit of 
warning before it dies.  My Powerbook syncs and goes into Sleep mode 
when it runs low on power (~1%/5mins)


external battery backed cache is readily available, either on 
high-end raid controllers or as seperate ram drives (and in raid 
array boxes), but nothing on individual drives.


Ah.  Curses.

UPS, then.  If you have enough time, you could even do a Software 
Suspend first -- that way, when power comes back on, you boot back up, 
and if it's done quickly enough, connections won't even be dropped...


remember, it can take 90W of power to run your CPU, 100+ to run your 
video card, plus everything else. even a few seconds of power for this 
is a very significant amount of energy storage.


Suspend2 can take about 10-20 seconds.  It should be possible to work 
out the maximum amount of time it can take.


Anyway, according to a quick Google search, my CPU is more like 70W. 
Video card isn't required on a server, but you may be right on mine.  I 
haven't looked at UPSes lately, though.  I need about 3 seconds for a 
sync, maybe 10 for a suspend, so to be safe I can say for sure I'd be 
down in about 30 seconds.


So, another Google search, and while you can get a cheap UPS for 
anywhere from $10 to $100, the sweet spot seems to be a little over $200.


$229, and it's 865W, supposedly for 3.7 minutes.  Here's a review:

"This is a great product. It powers an AMD 64 3200+ with beefy (6800GT) 
graphics card, 21" CRT monitor, secondary 19" CRT, a linux server, a 15" 
CRT, Cisco 2800XL switch, Linksys WRTG54GS, cable modem, speakers, and 
many other things. The software says I will get 9 minutes runtime with 
all of that hooked up, realistically it's about 4 minutes."


This was the lowest time reported.  Most of the other reviews say at 
least 15 minutes, sometimes 30 minutes, with fairly high-end computers 
listed (and monitors, sometimes two computers/monitors), but nowhere 
near as much stuff as this guy has.


I checked most of these for Linux support, and UPSes in general seem 
well supported.  So yes, the box will shut off automatically.  On a 
network, it shouldn't be too hard to get one box to shut off all the rest.


It's a lot of money, even at the low end, but when you're already 
spending a pile of money on a new computer, keep power in mind.  And 
really, even 11 minutes would be fine, but 40 minutes of power is quite 
a lot compared to less than a minute of time taken to shut down normally 
-- not even suspend, but a normal shut down.  I'd be tempted to try to 
ride it out for the first 20 minutes, see if power comes back up...


however, I did get a pointer recently at a company makeing super-high 
capcity caps, up to 2600F (F, not uF!) in a 138mmx tall 57mm dia 
cyliner, however it only handles 2.7v (they have modules that handle 
higher voltages available)

http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/index.html

however I don't see these as being standard equipment in systems or on 
drives anytime soon


This seems to be a whole different approach -- more along the lines of 
in the drive, which would be cool...


Re: Solaris ZFS on Linux [Was: Re: the " 'official' point of view"expressedby kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion]

2006-07-31 Thread David Lang

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:


David Lang wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, David Masover wrote:

Oh, I'm curious -- do hard drives ever carry enough battery/capacitance to 
cover their caches?  It doesn't seem like it would be that hard/expensive, 
and if it is done that way, then I think it's valid to leave them on.  You 
could just say that other filesystems aren't taking as much advantage of 
newer drive features as Reiser :P


there are no drives that have the ability to flush their cache after they 
loose power.


Aha, so back to the usual argument:  UPS!  It takes a fraction of a second to 
flush that cache.


which does absolutly no good if someone trips over the power cord, the fuse 
blows in the power supply, someone yanks the drive out of the hot-swap bay, etc.


now, that being said, /. had a story within the last couple of days about 
hard drive manufacturers adding flash to their hard drives. they may be 
aiming to add some non-volitile cache capability to their drives, although 
I didn't think that flash writes were that fast (needed if you dump the 
cache to flash when you loose power), or that easy on power (given that you 
would first loose power), and flash has limited write cycles (needed if you 
always use the cache).


But, the point of flash was not to replace the RAM cache, but to be another 
level.  That is, you have your Flash which may be as fast as the disk, maybe 
faster, maybe less, and you have maybe a gig worth of it. Even the bloatiest 
of OSes aren't really all that big -- my OS X came installed, with all kinds 
of apps I'll never use, in less than 10 gigs.


And I think this story was awhile ago (a dupe?  Not surprising), and the 
point of the Flash is that as long as your read/write cache doesn't run out, 
and you're still in that 1 gig of Flash, you're a bit safer than the RAM 
cache, and you can also leave the disk off, as in, spinned down.  Parked.


as I understand it flash reads are fast (ram speeds), but writes are pretty slow 
(comparable or worse to spinning media)


writing to a ram cache, but having a flash drive behind it doesn't gain you any 
protection. and I don't think you need it for reads



external battery backed cache is readily available, either on high-end raid 
controllers or as seperate ram drives (and in raid array boxes), but 
nothing on individual drives.


Ah.  Curses.

UPS, then.  If you have enough time, you could even do a Software Suspend 
first -- that way, when power comes back on, you boot back up, and if it's 
done quickly enough, connections won't even be dropped...


remember, it can take 90W of power to run your CPU, 100+ to run your video card, 
plus everything else. even a few seconds of power for this is a very significant 
amount of energy storage.


however, I did get a pointer recently at a company makeing super-high capcity 
caps, up to 2600F (F, not uF!) in a 138mmx tall 57mm dia cyliner, however it 
only handles 2.7v (they have modules that handle higher voltages available)

http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/index.html

however I don't see these as being standard equipment in systems or on drives 
anytime soon


David Lang