[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] fs: Do not dispatch FITRIM through separate super_operation
Jeff Moyer wrote:
> James Bottomley <> writes:
> > Not stepping into the debate: I'm happy to see punch go to the mapping
> > data and FITRIM pick it up later.
> >
> > However, I think it's time to question whether we actually still want to
> > allow online discard at all. Most of the benchmarks show it to be a net
> Define online discard, please.
> > lose to almost everything (either SSD or Thinly Provisioned arrays), so
> > it's become an "enable this to degrade performance" option with no
> > upside.
> Some SSDs very much require TRIMming to perform well as they age. If
> you're suggesting that we move from doing discards in journal commits to
> a batched discard, like the one Lukas implemented, then I think that's
> fine. If we need to reintroduce the finer-grained discards due to some
> hardware changes in the future, we can always do that.

"Growable" virtual disks benefit from it too, if it frees up a lot of space.

Windows has some ability to trim unused space in NTFS on virtual disks
for this reason; I'm not sure if it's an online or offline procedure.

Online trim may be slow, but offline would be awfully inconvenient
when an fs is big and needed for a live system, or when it's your root fs.

-- Jamie

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-18 19:53    [W:0.197 / U:3.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site