Traditional graphics code works by having the CPU generate a sequence of commands which are packed together and sent to the GPU to run. This extension let’s you write code which runs on the GPU to generate commands, and then execute those same commands on the GPU without involving the CPU at all.

This is a super powerful feature which makes it possible to do things which simply weren’t feasible in the traditional model. Vulkan improved on OpenGL by allowing people to build command buffers on multiple threads, and also re-use existing command buffers, but GPU pipelines are getting so wide that scenes containing many objects with different render settings are bottlenecked by the rate at which the CPU can prepare commands, not by GPU throughput. Letting the GPU generate its own commands means you can leverage the GPU’s massive parallelism for the entire render process, and can also make render state changes much cheaper.

(For anyone familiar, this is basically a more fleshed out version of NVIDIA’s proprietary NV_command_list extension for OpenGL, except that it’s in Vulkan and standardized across all GPU drivers)

“Better” in the sense that it actually has the ability to check for corruption at all, as all metadata and data are checksummed.

25% of millions of people is still many people, they didn’t say “a majority of people”.

• An object at motion stays in motion
• An object at rest stays at rest
• Don’t push the big red button

You’ve made me uncertain if I’ve somehow never noticed this before, so I gave it a shot. I’ve been dd-ing /dev/random onto one of those drives for the last 20 minutes and the transfer rate has only dropped by about 4MB/s since I started, which is about the kind of slowdown I would expect as the drive head gets closer to the center of the platter.

EDIT: I’ve now been doing 1.2GB/s onto an 8 drive RAID0 (8x 600GB 15k SAS Seagates) for over 10 minutes with no noticable slowdown. That comes out to 150MB/s per drive, and these drives are from 2014 or 2015. If you’re only getting 60MB/s on a modern non-SMR HDD, especially something as dense as an 18TB drive, you’ve either configured something wrong or your hardware is broken.

This is for very long sustained writes, like 40TiB at a time. I can’t say I’ve ever noticed any slowdown, but I’ll keep a closer eye on it next time I do another huge copy. I’ve also never seen any kind of noticeable slowdown on my 4 8TB SATA WD golds, although they only get to about 150MB/s each.

EDIT: The effect would be obvious pretty fast at even moderate write speeds, I’ve never seen a drive with more than a GB of cache. My 16TB drives have 256MB, and the 8TB drives only 64MB of cache.

My 16TB ultrastars get upwards of 180MB/s sustained read and write, these will presumably be faster than that as the density is higher.

not sure what you’re on about, i have some cheap 500GB USB 3 drives from like 2016 lying around and even those can happily deal with sustained writes over 130MB/s.

Okay, but the commenter said “my laptop with jts integrated GPU”. Obviously, laptops with a dedicated AMD GPU would be affected by this change.

Wow look at mister long dong over here reaching all the way into the water

It specifically says the change only applies to dedicated GPUs, not integrated ones.

I had a double root canal a few months ago, no anesthesia, and literally couldn’t feel anything. The nerves on both teeth were already completely dead, there was simply no sensation at all.

It is the point, this is exactly what Broadcom does.

“Please insert your webcam.”

Yes

Reminds me of Al Quadea Also Fed Up With Ground Zero Construction Delays

Concentric Circles Emanating from Glowing Red Dot

Yes, which is why these settings can also be configured per-directory as well as per-file.

It’s not that obscure - I had a use case a while back where I had multiple rocksdb instances running on the same machine and wanted each of them to store their WAL only on SSD storage with compression and have the main tables be stored uncompressed on an HDD array with write-through SSD cache (ideally using the same set of SSDs for cost). I eventually did it, but it required partitioning the SSDs in half, using one half for a bcache (not bcachefs) in front of the HDDs and then using the other half of the SSDs to create a compressed filesystem which I then created subdirectories on and bind mounted each into the corresponding rocksdb database.

Yes, it works, but it’s also ugly as sin and the SSD allocation between the cache and the WAL storage is also fixed (I’d like to use as much space as possible for caching). This would be just a few simple commands using bcachefs, and would also be completely transparent once configured (no messing around with dozens of fstab entries or bind mounts).

ext4 aims to not lose data under the assumption that the single underlying drive is reliable. btrfs/bcachefs/ZFS assume that one/many of the perhaps dozens of underlying drives could fail entirely or start returning garbage at any time, and try to ensure that the bad drive can be kicked out and replaced without losing any data or interrupting the system. They’re both aiming for stability, but stability requirements are much different at scale than a “dumb” filesystem can offer, because once you have enough drives one of them WILL fail and ext4 cannot save you in that situation.

Complaining that datacenter-grade filesystems are unreliable when using them in your home computer is like removing all but one of the engines from a 747 and then complaining that it’s prone to crashing. Of course it is, because it was designed under the assumption that there would be redundancy.