On Friday 13 August 2010 16:10:24 Ben Chociej wrote:
> It's a good point, of course. Ideally we would be able to prioritize
> data and place them on 15k versus 7.2krpm disks, etc. However you get
> to a point where's there's only incremental benefit. For that reason,
> the scope of this project was
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:14:22PM +0400, Andrey Panin wrote:
>> On 224, 08 12, 2010 at 05:29:37PM -0500, bchoc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > From: Ben Chociej
>> >
>> > Modified mkfs.btrfs to add hot data relocation option (-h) which
>> > preallo
It's a good point, of course. Ideally we would be able to prioritize
data and place them on 15k versus 7.2krpm disks, etc. However you get
to a point where's there's only incremental benefit. For that reason,
the scope of this project was simply to take advantage of SSD and HDD
in hybrid. Of course
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:14:22PM +0400, Andrey Panin wrote:
> On 224, 08 12, 2010 at 05:29:37PM -0500, bchoc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Ben Chociej
> >
> > Modified mkfs.btrfs to add hot data relocation option (-h) which
> > preallocates BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA_SSD and
> > BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_M
On 224, 08 12, 2010 at 05:29:37PM -0500, bchoc...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ben Chociej
>
> Modified mkfs.btrfs to add hot data relocation option (-h) which
> preallocates BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA_SSD and
> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA_SSD at mkfs time for future use by hot data
> relocation code. Al
From: Ben Chociej
Modified mkfs.btrfs to add hot data relocation option (-h) which
preallocates BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA_SSD and
BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA_SSD at mkfs time for future use by hot data
relocation code. Also added a userspace function to detect whether a
block device is an SSD by rea
