Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 07 Oct 2012 09:09:30 +0200 | From | Marco Stornelli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/16] f2fs: introduce flash-friendly file system |
| |
Il 06/10/2012 22:06, Jaegeuk Kim ha scritto: > 2012-10-06 (토), 17:54 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko: >> Hi Jaegeuk, > > Hi. > We know each other, right? :) > >> >>> From: 김재극 <jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com> >>> To: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@mit.edu>, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chur.lee@samsung.com, cm224.lee@samsung.com, jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com, jooyoung.hwang@samsung.com >>> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |