From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri Oct 16 13:19:49 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C9CA16B5F; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:19:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5A761181; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:19:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.84 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Zn4v6-000C33-C5; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:19:40 +0300 Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:19:40 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Warner Losh Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r289405 - head/sys/ufs/ffs Message-ID: <20151016131940.GE42243@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201510160306.t9G3622O049128@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201510160306.t9G3622O049128@repo.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:19:49 -0000 On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 03:06:02AM +0000, Warner Losh wrote: > Author: imp > Date: Fri Oct 16 03:06:02 2015 > New Revision: 289405 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/289405 > > Log: > Do not relocate extents to make them contiguous if the underlying drive can do > deletions. Ability to do deletions is a strong indication that this > optimization will not help performance. It will only generate extra write > traffic. These devices are typically flash based and have a limited number of > write cycles. In addition, making the file contiguous in LBA space doesn't > improve the access times from flash devices because they have no seek time. In reality, flash devices have seek time, about 0.1ms. Many flash devices can do 8 simultaneously "seek" (I think NVMe can do more).