From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 31 23:18:30 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127CF106566C;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (bitblocks.com [64.142.15.60])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A498FC27;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost.bitblocks.com [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D865B50;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:18:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:29:38 PDT."
	<20080331222938.GS95731@elvis.mu.org> 
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:18:29 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20080331231829.26D865B50@mail.bitblocks.com>
Cc: Christopher Arnold <chris@arnold.se>, arch@freebsd.org,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, qpadla@gmail.com,
	Martin Fouts <mfouts@danger.com>
Subject: Re: Flash disks and FFS layout heuristics 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:18:30 -0000

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:29:38 PDT Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>  wrote:
> * Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> [080331 15:24] wrote:
> > In message <20080331222154.C976C5B50@mail.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah writes
> :
> > >On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:06:10 PDT Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.c
> om>  wrote:
> > >>     But how do you index that information?  You can't simply append the
> > >>     information to the NAND unless you also have a way to access it.  So
> > >>     does the filesystem have to scan the NAND (or significant portions o
> f it)
> > >>     in order to build an index of the filesystem topology in system memo
> ry?
> > >
> > >One possible way:
> > >
> > >I'd design the system so that each update ends with the write
> > >of a root block[1]. 
> > 
> > This is sort of the approach Margo Seltzer used for her (Kludge-)LFS
> > it has many drawbacks, in particular when it comes to recovery.
> 
> Can you explain why?
> 
> I could see it being a problem because recovering the filesystem's
> most recent change might require significant scanning?

Let us take the mtron MSD-SATA3025-032 device for example. It
has a capacity of 32GB + can do 16,000 random & 78,000
sequential reads per second (of 512 byte blocks). If you
write a root block every megabyte, you have 2^15 potential
root blocks.  Locating the latest one will require 16 random
reads + a scan of at most 1MB; which translates to about
26ms.  Not too bad since this cost is incurred only on
the first mount or reboot.