| |||||||||||||
Runtime filesystem consistency checkingRuntime filesystem consistency checkingPosted Apr 4, 2012 12:59 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Runtime filesystem consistency checking by epa Parent article: Runtime filesystem consistency checking
More or less. This means that when you go from Linux 0.1 (with typical size of HDD 200-300MB) to Linux 3.0 (with typical size of HDD 2-4TB) filesystem slows by a factor of 100, not by a factor of 10'000. But 100x slowdown is still a lot.
(Log in to post comments)
Runtime filesystem consistency checking Posted Apr 4, 2012 16:01 UTC (Wed) by wazoox (subscriber, #69624) [Link]
I'm currently testing 4TB drives right now. RAID rebuild now reaches 48 hours, up from 10 hours for 1 TB.
The individual 4 TB drive needs more than 9 hours to simply fill it up sequentially. We'll need to index blocks on our spinning rust on SSD cache before long :)
Runtime filesystem consistency checking Posted Apr 4, 2012 19:41 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Contemporary 4TB HDDs are especially slow because they use 5 plates (where your 1TB disks probably used 2 or 3). This means that not only you see the slowdown from growing number of tracks, you see additional slowdown from growing number of plates! Thankfully in this direction 5 is the limit: I doubt we'll see return of 30 plates monsters like the infamous Winchester… all 3.5" HDDs to date had 5 plates or less.
Runtime filesystem consistency checking Posted Apr 5, 2012 9:18 UTC (Thu) by misiu_mp (guest, #41936) [Link]
I dont think its clear why would more plates be slower. More plates means more heads, with possibility for concurrency - that should increase sequential transfer speed.
If data is written cylinder-wise, the latency should be similar to one-plate disk. If it is written plate-wise, the latency should vary up and down in relation to block numbers. Its possible the average latency would still be comparable. The only clear negative about multi-platter systems is the increased inertia of the head assembly. It's not so clear whether it has a practical implication. Apart from this unclear performance implication, there is of course the decreased reliability and increased cost of multi-platter solutions. That is the main reason we don't see that many of them.
Runtime filesystem consistency checking Posted Apr 5, 2012 10:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] More plates means more heads, with possibility for concurrency - that should increase sequential transfer speed. Good idea. Sadly it's about ten years too late. Today's tracks are too small: when the head is on a track on one plate all other heads are not on this same track. In fact they are not on track at all. They just randomly drift between 2-3 tracks adjacent to each other. That's why you can only use one head actively (how can we use even one if it's all is so unstable? well, it's easy: there are active scheme which dynamically moves head to keep it on track). If data is written cylinder-wise, the latency should be similar to one-plate disk. Latency of seeks - yes, number of tracks - no. If you use the same plates then filesystem on a single plate HDD will be roughly five times faster then filesystem on five plates HDD. That is the main reason we don't see that many of them. The main reason we don't see many of them is cost. They are more expensive to produce and since they are less reliable they incur more warranty overhead. They are also slower, but this secondary problem.
Runtime filesystem consistency checking Posted Apr 13, 2012 8:47 UTC (Fri) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
So, we "only" need to make the arms move independently then. :-)
|
|||||||||||||