[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin Steigerwald <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs
From: Georg Schönberger <g.schoenberger@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2015 10:18:54 +0000
Accept-language: en-US, de-DE
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx>, Linux FS-Devel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Block mailing list <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=xortex.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; s=postfix; bh=G6rNZ4HEboO+az3Tru+JzAthQ5Y=; b=G4/yOgxXINeaDlTequkNZUfwvf19 7108aDmNFGGglILjEWX5t+ldfns+8NVgE52GLQUvPthXpXEERctVSb/TIkT0bKGn +vPySbd7YY7Styyu0ZaSxGGbR8+IJpBjIlGHjGtCSi/RIzpWFn/f4C5hrOMRWFry qXxpQfABZmneALY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=xortex.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; q=dns; s= postfix; b=aPEZ/9YgMjfDcnSQfoiy/kwlb2Iad8wcBIJP4J6Fk0G1iLAMoCMtm yEI3n43EujyYlyG3dw2y6jTEkCNv6dWcOkq63Ul7VCO4Fm2oI6N+m4ktgx+OqcIC GW60AXbF4p2jFK2++ZXqbHIv4glV7rZFLkB82rOIJ8ZCO68xplZ3h4=
In-reply-to: <20151214095823.GA30662@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E127700EFE58FD45BD6298EAC813FA42020D8173@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3496214.YTSKClH6pV@merkaba> <566E6524.6070401@xxxxxxxxxx> <3911767.qVqsL1TcMv@merkaba> <20151214095823.GA30662@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-topic: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs
On 2015-12-14 10:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 09:38:56AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>> Is it safe to use XFS (or any other filesystem) on enterprise SSDs with Power
>> Loss Protection (PLP), i.e. some capacitor to provide for enough electricity
>> to write out all data in DRAM to flash after a power loss, with a reordering
>> I/O scheduler like CFQ?
> If the device does not need cache flushes it should not report requiring
> flushes, in which case nobarrier will be a noop.
OK - that would also mean that mounting with nobarrier should not make a 
performance difference.

> Or to phrase it
> differently:  If nobarrier makes a difference skipping it is not safe.
I do not fully understand that sentence, what do you mean by "makes a 
difference" and "skipping is not safe"?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>