| 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-index: | AQHRNMdGBaYyXD3vpkWRruYFudZnLJ7HNjkAgALFBwCAACArAIAAFjKAgAAFvAA= |
| 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"? -Georg |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [3.16] xfs: allow inode allocations in post-growfs disk space, Luis Henriques |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs, Christoph Hellwig |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |