Re: Why is O_DSYNC on linux so slow / what's wrong with my SSD?

[Stefan Priebe]

Am 20.11.2013 16:55, schrieb J. Bruce Fields:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:37:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 08:52:36PM +0530, Chinmay V S wrote:
> > > If you have confirmed the performance numbers, then it indicates that
> > > the Intel 530 controller is more advanced and makes better use of the
> > > internal disk-cache to achieve better performance (as compared to the
> > > Intel 520). Thus forcing CMD_FLUSH on each IOP (negating the benefits
> > > of the disk write-cache and not allowing any advanced disk controller
> > > optimisations) has a more pronouced effect of degrading the
> > > performance on Intel 530 SSDs. (Someone with some actual info on Intel
> > > SSDs kindly confirm this.)
> >
> > You might also want to do some power fail testing to make sure that
> > the SSD is actually flusing all of its internal Flash Translation
> > Layer (FTL) metadata to stable storage on every CMD_FLUSH command.
>
> Some SSD's are also claim the ability to flush the cache on power loss:
>
> 	http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/solid-state-drives/ssd-320-series-power-loss-data-protection-brief.html
>
> Which should in theory let them respond immediately to flush requests,
> right?  Except they only seem to advertise it as a safety (rather than a
> performance) feature, so I probably misunderstand something.

Yes but they all should make use and support CMD_FLUSH so it's slow on 
them too.

> And the 520 doesn't claim this feature (look for "enhanced power loss
> protection" at http://ark.intel.com/products/66248), so that wouldn't
> explain these results anyway.

Correct i think intel simply ignores CMD_FLUSH on that drive - no idea 
why an they fixed this for their 330, 530, DC S3500 (all tested)

> --b.
>
> > There are lots of flash media that don't do this, with the result that
> > I get lots of users whining at me when their file system stored on an
> > SD card has massive corruption after a power fail event.
> >
> > Historically, Intel has been really good about avoiding this, but
> > since they've moved to using 3rd party flash controllers, I now advise
> > everyone who plans to use any flash storage, regardless of the
> > manufacturer, to do their own explicit power fail testing (hitting the
> > reset button is not good enough, you need to kick the power plug out
> > of the wall, or better yet, use a network controlled power switch you
> > so you can repeat the power fail test dozens or hundreds of times for
> > your qualification run) before being using flash storage in a mission
> > critical situation where you care about data integrity after a power
> > fail event.
> >
> > IOW, make sure that the SSD isn't faster because it's playing fast and
> > loose with the FTL metadata....
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > 						- Ted
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/