On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 08:55:36PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 1/9/21 10:23 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>
> > On a loaded test server, I observed 90th percentile fsync times
> > drop from 7 seconds without preferred_metadata to 0.7 seconds with
> > preferred_metadata when all the metadata i
On 1/9/21 10:23 PM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On a loaded test server, I observed 90th percentile fsync times
drop from 7 seconds without preferred_metadata to 0.7 seconds with
preferred_metadata when all the metadata is on the SSDs. If some metadata
ever lands on a spinner, we go back to almost 7 se
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:30:49PM +0100, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 1/8/21 2:05 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> >
> > I've been testing these patches for a while now. They enable an
> > interesting use case th
On 1/8/21 6:30 PM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 1/8/21 2:05 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
I've been testing these patches for a while now. They enable an
interesting use case that can't otherwise be done safely, sanely o
On 1/8/21 2:05 AM, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
[...]
I've been testing these patches for a while now. They enable an
interesting use case that can't otherwise be done safely, sanely or
cheaply with btrfs.
Thanks Zygo for this fe
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:34:47PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>
> [the previous patches sets called this mode ssd_metadata]
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is an RFC; I wrote this patch because I find the idea interesting
> even though it adds more complication to the chunk allocator.
>
> The initi
