| |||||||||||||
Future storage technologies and LinuxFuture storage technologies and LinuxPosted Apr 7, 2011 19:14 UTC (Thu) by eds (guest, #69511)In reply to: Future storage technologies and Linux by njwhite Parent article: Future storage technologies and Linux
Every SSD in the world does far worse: data gets placed in some physical location that the host will never know, gets relocated periodically as part of wear-leveling and reclamation of partially-used flash blocks, and perhaps due to eventual ECC degradation.
Shingled HDD media, hybrid storage, and solid-state drives based on unreliable media will all force you into a situation where you will be unable to know the physical layout of your data, and you'll be at the mercy of the device firmware.
Learn to love the bomb?
(Log in to post comments)
Future storage technologies and Linux Posted Apr 7, 2011 20:36 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
umm, 'normal' hard drives have been transparently relocating data for the last 15 years or so, this is nothing new.
Future storage technologies and Linux Posted Apr 8, 2011 21:28 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] umm, 'normal' hard drives have been transparently relocating data for the last 15 years or so Hardly ever. If you assume block N is always next to N+1, your performance won't be noticeably different from optimum. I'm lost in this thread, though. In response to a comment giving a few reasons that it's better for Linux to control a drive than for a controller bundled with the drive to do it, eds writes, "Every SSD in the world does far worse." Far worse than what? I thought this might be a misplaced comment meant to respond to the issue the article raises of these new disk drives having unpredictable layout. But the unpredictable layout of SSD blocks isn't the same problem: on a disk drive, unlike an SSD, it matters a lot for speed in what physical order you access the blocks.
|
|||||||||||||