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
>
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Warr [mailto:ja...@warr.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 10:15 PM
> To: Amit Kale; device-mapper development; kent.overstr...@gmail.com;
> Mike Snitzer; LKML; linux-bca...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Announcement:
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
