On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 04:37:59PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18 2013 at 4:25pm -0500,
> Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> > Since Joe is putting together a testing tree to compare the three caching
> > things, what do you all think of having a(nother) session about ssd caching
> > at
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pavel Machek [mailto:pa...@ucw.cz]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 4:37 AM
> To: Amit Kale
> Cc: LKML
> Subject: Re: Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO SSD caching software for
> Linux kernel
>
> Hi!
>
> > EnhanceIO driv
Hi!
> EnhanceIO driver is based on EnhanceIO SSD caching software product developed
> by STEC Inc. EnhanceIO was derived from Facebook's open source Flashcache
> project. EnhanceIO uses SSDs as cache devices for traditional rotating hard
> disk drives (referred to as source volumes throughout t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 05:08:37PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> > From: Jason Warr [mailto:ja...@warr.net]
> > On 01/17/2013 11:53 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
> > >>> 9. Performance - Throughput is generally most important. Latency is
> > >> > also one more performance comparison point. Performance under
>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 03:39:40AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Suppose I could fill out the bcache version...
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> > 11. Error conditions - Handling power failures, intermittent and permanent
> > device failures.
>
> Power failures
x-foundation.org; Joe Thornber
> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Re: [dm-devel] Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO
> SSD caching software for Linux kernel
>
> On Mon, Jan 21 2013 at 12:26am -0500,
> Amit Kale wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Mike
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 08:09:51AM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> dm-cache is under active review for upstream inclusion. I wouldn't
> categorize the chances of dm-cache going upstream when the v3.9 merge
> window opens as "very low". But even if dm-cache does go upstream it
> doesn't preclude bcac
; linux-bca...@vger.kernel.org;
> > kent.overstr...@gmail.com; LKML; lsf...@lists.linux-foundation.org; Joe
> > Thornber
> > Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Re: [dm-devel] Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO
> > SSD caching software for Linux kernel
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18 2013 at 4:25pm
oundation.org; Joe
> Thornber
> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Re: [dm-devel] Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO
> SSD caching software for Linux kernel
>
> On Fri, Jan 18 2013 at 4:25pm -0500,
> Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> > Since Joe is putting together a testing tree to compare
On Fri, Jan 18 2013 at 4:25pm -0500,
Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Since Joe is putting together a testing tree to compare the three caching
> things, what do you all think of having a(nother) session about ssd caching at
> this year's LSFMM Summit?
>
> [Apologies for hijacking the thread.]
> [Addin
Since Joe is putting together a testing tree to compare the three caching
things, what do you all think of having a(nother) session about ssd caching at
this year's LSFMM Summit?
[Apologies for hijacking the thread.]
[Adding lsf-pc to the cc list.]
--D
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:36:42PM -0600, J
On 01/18/2013 11:44 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
>> As much as I dislike Oracle that is one of my primary applications. I
>> > am attempting to get one of my customers to setup an Oracle instance
>> > that is modular in that I can move the storage around to fit a
>> > particular hardware setup and have a
STEC EnhanceIO SSD caching
> software for Linux kernel
>
>
> On 01/18/2013 10:11 AM, thorn...@redhat.com wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:56:19AM -0600, Jason Warr wrote:
> >> If I can help test and benchmark all three of these solutions please
> >> ask.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:45:03AM -0600, Jason Warr wrote:
> As much as I dislike Oracle that is one of my primary applications. I
> am attempting to get one of my customers to setup an Oracle instance
> that is modular in that I can move the storage around to fit a
> particular hardware setup an
On 01/18/2013 10:11 AM, thorn...@redhat.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:56:19AM -0600, Jason Warr wrote:
>> If I can help test and benchmark all three of these solutions please
>> ask. I have allot of hardware resources available to me and perhaps I
>> can add value from an outsiders pers
; Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO SSD caching
> software for Linux kernel
>
>
> On 01/18/2013 03:08 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
> >> > Can you explain what you mean by that in a little more detail?
> > Let's say latency of a block device is 10ms for 4kB requ
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:56:19AM -0600, Jason Warr wrote:
> If I can help test and benchmark all three of these solutions please
> ask. I have allot of hardware resources available to me and perhaps I
> can add value from an outsiders perspective.
We'd love your help. Perhaps you could devise
On 01/18/2013 03:08 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
>> > Can you explain what you mean by that in a little more detail?
> Let's say latency of a block device is 10ms for 4kB requests. With single
> threaded IO, the throughput will be 4kB/10ms = 400kB/s. If the device is
> capable of more throughput, a mult
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:47AM +, thorn...@redhat.com wrote:
> I'll create a branch in my github tree with all three caches in. So
> it's easy to build a kernel with them. (Mike's already combined
> dm-cache and bcache and done some preliminary testing).
git://github.com/jthornber/linux-
> From: Jason Warr [mailto:ja...@warr.net]
> On 01/17/2013 11:53 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
> >>> 9. Performance - Throughput is generally most important. Latency is
> >> > also one more performance comparison point. Performance under
> >> > different load classes can be measured.
> >> >
> >> > I t
> > > The mq policy uses a multiqueue (effectively a partially
> sorted
> > > lru list) to keep track of candidate block hit counts. When
> > > candidates get enough hits they're promoted. The promotion
> > > threshold his periodically recalculated by looking at the hit
> > >
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:53:11AM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> > The mq policy uses a multiqueue (effectively a partially sorted
> > lru list) to keep track of candidate block hit counts. When
> > candidates get enoug
On 01/17/2013 11:53 AM, Amit Kale wrote:
>>> 9. Performance - Throughput is generally most important. Latency is
>> > also one more performance comparison point. Performance under
>> > different load classes can be measured.
>> >
>> > I think latency is more important than throughput. Spin
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> > Hi Joe, Kent,
> >
> > [Adding Kent as well since bcache is mentioned below as one of the
> > contenders for being integrated into mainline kernel.]
> >
> > My understanding is that these three caching solutions all have three
> pri
Thanks for a prompt reply.
> Suppose I could fill out the bcache version...
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> > Hi Joe, Kent,
> >
> > [Adding Kent as well since bcache is mentioned below as one of the
> > contenders for being integrated into mainline kernel.]
> >
>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> Hi Joe, Kent,
>
> [Adding Kent as well since bcache is mentioned below as one of the contenders
> for being integrated into mainline kernel.]
>
> My understanding is that these three caching solutions all have three
> principle blocks
Suppose I could fill out the bcache version...
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> Hi Joe, Kent,
>
> [Adding Kent as well since bcache is mentioned below as one of the contenders
> for being integrated into mainline kernel.]
>
> My understanding is that these three cach
opment
> Cc: Mike Snitzer; LKML
> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Announcement: STEC EnhanceIO SSD caching
> software for Linux kernel
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> I'll look through EnhanceIO this week.
>
> There are several cache solutions out there; bcache, my dm-cache and
>
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:47AM +, thorn...@redhat.com wrote:
> I think the first thing we need to do is make it easy to compare the
> performance of these impls.
I've added EnhanceIO support to my cache tests [1].
I've run it through one of the benchmarks and got some curious results.
Th
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:45:47AM +, thorn...@redhat.com wrote:
> Hi Amit,
>
> I'll look through EnhanceIO this week.
I just ran the code through sparse and it throws up a lot of warnings.
Most of these trivial; functions that should be declared static. But
some are more concerning, like th
Hi Amit,
I'll look through EnhanceIO this week.
There are several cache solutions out there; bcache, my dm-cache and
EnhanceIO seeming to be the favourites. In suspect none of them are
without drawbacks, so I'd like to see if we can maybe work together.
I think the first thing we need to do is
Hi Mike,
> The github code you've referenced is in a strange place; it is
> obviously in a bit of flux.
Git URLs for accessing these are -
git clone https://github.com/stec-inc/EnhanceIO.git
git clone git://github.com/stec-inc/EnhanceIO.git
>
> > Repository location - https://github.com/ste
Hi Amit,
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Amit Kale wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> STEC is happy to announce hosting of our EnhanceIO SSD caching software on
> github.
> We would like to invite kernel hackers to try it. We'll appreciate your
> valuable feedback to help us improve it to the standards
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 01:18:37AM +0800, Amit Kale wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> STEC is happy to announce hosting of our EnhanceIO SSD caching software on
> github.
> We would like to invite kernel hackers to try it. We'll appreciate your
> valuable feedback to help us improve it to the standards of
Greetings,
STEC is happy to announce hosting of our EnhanceIO SSD caching software on
github.
We would like to invite kernel hackers to try it. We'll appreciate your
valuable feedback to help us improve it to the standards of Linux kernel source
code. We hope to eventually submit it for a possi
35 matches
Mail list logo
