Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system

[Marco Stornelli]

Il 06/10/2012 22:06, Jaegeuk Kim ha scritto:
> 2012-10-06 (í), 17:54 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> Hi.
> We know each other, right? :)
>
> > > From:	 	êìê <jaegeuk.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To:	 	viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@xxxxxxx>, gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chur.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx, cm224.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx, jaegeuk.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx, jooyoung.hwang@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject:	 	[PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system
> > > Date:	 	Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:55:07 +0900
> > >
> > > This is a new patch set for the f2fs file system.
> > >
> > > What is F2FS?
> > > =============
> > >
> > > NAND flash memory-based storage devices, such as SSD, eMMC, and SD cards, have
> > > been widely being used for ranging from mobile to server systems. Since they are
> > > known to have different characteristics from the conventional rotational disks,
> > > a file system, an upper layer to the storage device, should adapt to the changes
> > > from the sketch.
> > >
> > > F2FS is a new file system carefully designed for the NAND flash memory-based storage
> > > devices. We chose a log structure file system approach, but we tried to adapt it
> > > to the new form of storage. Also we remedy some known issues of the very old log
> > > structured file system, such as snowball effect of wandering tree and high cleaning
> > > overhead.
> > >
> > > Because a NAND-based storage device shows different characteristics according to
> > > its internal geometry or flash memory management scheme aka FTL, we add various
> > > parameters not only for configuring on-disk layout, but also for selecting allocation
> > > and cleaning algorithms.
> >
> > What about F2FS performance? Could you share benchmarking results of the new file system?
> >
> > It is very interesting the case of aged file system. How is GC's implementation efficient? Could you share benchmarking results for the very aged file system state?
>
> Although I have benchmark results, currently I'd like to see the results
> measured by community as a black-box. As you know, the results are very
> dependent on the workloads and parameters, so I think it would be better
> to see other results for a while.
> Thanks,

1) Actually it's a strange approach. If you have got any results you 
should share them with the community explaining how (the workload, hw 
and so on) your benchmark works and the specific condition. I really 
don't like the approach "I've got the results but I don't say anything, 
if you want a number, do it yourself".
2) For a new filesystem you should send the patches to linux-fsdevel.
3) It's not clear the pros/cons of your filesystem, can you share with 
us the main differences with the current fs already in mainline? Or is 
it a company secret?

Marco
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/