Data storage devices, such as disk drives using shingled recording media and solid state drives, can use “logical block address (LBA) indirection” to store user data on non-volatile media, such as a disk surface or flash memory, wherein LBAs and associated data are not typically stored in the same physical location each time they are written. In a data storage device using LBA indirection, a host may write a logically sequential group of LBAs into a corresponding number of sequential physical locations on the non-volatile media. However, as the LBAs are rewritten by the host, they may end up in non-sequential physical locations. Thus, a group of LBAs that was once sequentially written onto the non-volatile media may become scattered at different locations on the media as they are rewritten. As a result, the non-volatile media will become increasingly fragmented over time, which can significantly degrade the read performance of the data storage device.
In addition, a data storage device that uses LBA indirection typically uses a translation table to keep track of LBAs and corresponding physical locations on the non-volatile media. As the non-volatile media becomes fragmented, the number of entries in the translation table increases, thereby undesirably increasing the amount of memory required to store the translation table.
To overcome the aforementioned problems associated with fragmentation of the non-volatile media, a defragmentation may be employed. In a defragmentation process, a range of LBAs may be selected, read from the non-volatile media (e.g., a shingled recording media), and rewritten as a sequential stream onto the non-volatile media. The above steps may be repeated for each LBA range on the non-volatile media. This process increases read performance of the non-volatile media and also reduces the size and required storage space of the translation table. However, the defragmentation process can be an expensive operation in that it can increase latency and reduce overall data storage device performance. Thus, it is important to perform the defragmentation process efficiently so as to minimize the aforementioned undesirable effects.
In the embodiment of
In the embodiment shown in
In addition, the SM 38 may provide storage for the translation table used by the control circuitry 12. The translation table provides a data structure for mapping the LBAs requested by the host into physical locations on a non-volatile media (e.g., the disk surface 41). In an embodiment of the invention, LBAs are written on the disk surface 41 using LBA indirection, wherein an LBA is generally stored in a different physical location on the disk surface 41 each time it is written by the host.
In an embodiment of the invention using shingled magnetic recording, the data tracks 6 on the disk surface 41 are written in a shingled manner such that each track is partially overwritten when an immediately contiguous track is written. In shingled magnetic recording, for example, LBAs from the host are recorded sequentially, resulting in LBA indirection. Since there is no fixed location on the disk surface 41 for a given LBA, the control circuitry 12 maintains the translation table to keep track of the physical locations of the LBAs. For example, when a LBA is rewritten, a newer copy of that LBA will be written in a new location on the disk surface 41, and the control circuitry 12 updates the translation table to reflect the latest physical location of that LBA.
In the embodiment of the invention shown in
In the embodiment in
As shown in
A translation table, however, may consume significant memory resources, for example, of the SM 30, especially for larger capacity data store devices. Over time, the non-volatile media (e.g., a disk surface 41) may become fragmented and, thus, the entries in the translation table become shorter, resulting in more entries and an increased translation table size. Also, as the non-volatile media becomes more fragmented, the data storage device's sequential read performance may decrease significantly.
The size of the translation table and read performance of the data storage device may be optimized, for example, by employing defragmentation. Defragmentation is a process wherein fragmented LBAs are read from non-volatile media (e.g., a disk surface 41) and rewritten sequentially onto the non-volatile media to avoid fragmentation. In addition, the translation table is updated and optimized to reduce its required size. In embodiments of the present invention, various metrics (e.g., fragmentation, dispersion, and time metrics) are used, either singly or in combination, to select one of multiple segments of the translation table for defragmentation, wherein each segment corresponds to a range of LBAs on the non-volatile media (e.g., a disk surface 41) of a data storage device (e.g., a disk drive). Fragmentation, dispersion, and time metrics are discussed in detail below.
Fragmentation Metrics
In an embodiment of the invention, a fragmentation metric depends only on the state of the translation table and does not attempt to take the actual geometry of a data storage device (e.g., a disk drive) into account. While this may be optimal for the translation table, it ignores any benefit to read performance in the data storage device.
In an embodiment of the invention, a translation table entry represents a sequence of LBAs that are both logically and physically sequential. The entry may represent from one to a predetermined maximum number of blocks. In one embodiment, gaps in the translation table are represented by a gap in logical addresses between two entries. A translation table entry can be described, for example, by (l, p, n), where l represents the starting logical address, p represents the starting physical address, and n represents the number of blocks that are logically and physically sequential, starting with (l, p).
In an embodiment of the invention, a segment comprises a group of entries corresponding to a range of LBAs. The range of LBAs may be represented, for example, by the expression:
(l,n)={(l1,p1,n1),(i2,p2,n2), . . . (lm,pm,nm)}
where l≦li<l+n and (Σni)≦n. For example, the total length of all the entries may be less than the enclosing range when not all of the logical addresses in the range have physical addresses. Logical addresses that do not have physical addresses refer to logical addresses that have never been written by the host and, therefore, do not appear in the translation table.
In an embodiment, a first fragmentation metric (Δ1) indicates the number of entries, m, required to describe a range of LBAs (l, n), where 0≦m≦n. The first fragmentation metric is effective for comparing segments having logical ranges (i.e., ranges of LBAs) that have the same size, but not as effective when comparing segments corresponding to varying logical range sizes.
In an embodiment of the invention, a second fragmentation metric (Δ2) indicates a ratio of total number of LBAs per entry. For a given segment comprising a group of entries, a lower ratio indicates greater fragmentation. The second fragmentation metric may be represented, for example, by the expression:
where m represents the number of entries and ni represents the number of logically and physically sequential blocks.
Dispersion Metrics
In an embodiment of the invention, a dispersion metric is used to quantify the physical separation of logical addresses with the assumption that dispersion is proportional to the time it would take to read the corresponding data. As with fragmentation metrics, there is a correlation between read performance and translation table size.
In an embodiment, physical addresses pi, which correspond to physical locations on the non-volatile media (e.g., a disk surface 4), are represented by the translation table in a compact, integral addressing scheme referred to as “Shingled Absolute Block Address” (ShABA). A ShABA address may be converted to an actual physical location on a disk surface. For example, the physical location may be represented in cylindrical coordinates (h, r, θ), where h represents the disk surface, r represents the radius in servo tracks, and θ represents the angular position. As shown in the embodiment of the invention shown in
In one embodiment of the invention, a first dispersion metric (Δ3) indicates the variance in physical locations corresponding to each translation table entry in a segment (i.e., a group of entries corresponding to a range of LBAs). For the first dispersion metric, the physical distance between two physical addresses is assumed to be proportional to the difference between the two addresses' ShABA values. In an embodiment, this is calculated as the variance of the physical addresses in the logical address range, resulting in a first dispersion metric (Δ3):
In an embodiment, a second dispersion metric (Δ4), which is more accurate than the first dispersion metric, performs the translation from ShABA address to physical address and determines the variance in the distance from a centroid (i.e., a geometric center). For the second dispersion metric, the head coordinate h is ignored, since head switching time (i.e., the time to switch from one head to another in an embodiment wherein the data storage device comprises a multi-headed disk drive) is considered to be negligible. Thus, for the second dispersion metric, the physical location may be represented by (r, θ), where r represents the radius from the centroid, and θ represents the angular position. For example, the translation function can be represented by (r, θ)=T(pi). The centroid can then be determined by:
The distance function in cylindrical coordinates may be expressed as:
|(ri,θi)−(rj,θj)|=√{square root over ((ri cos θi−rj cos θj)2+(ri sin θi−rj sin θj)2)}{square root over ((ri cos θi−rj cos θj)2+(ri sin θi−rj sin θj)2)}.
By combining the above expressions, the variance for the second dispersion metric (Δ4) may be expressed as:
In an embodiment, the second dispersion metric is substantially more computationally expensive than the first dispersion metric, with much of the additional cost being the translations from ShABA addresses to physical locations.
Time Metrics
In an embodiment of the invention, a time metric directly estimates the amount of time required to perform a logically sequential read of a logical range (l, n). In one embodiment, when logical blocks have never been written by the host, they are constructed as all-zero sectors and returned without any disk surface activity. For example, if (l, n) is completely unwritten, the time required to construct such data may be expressed as t=nTdf, where Tdf is the time required to fabricate one block.
When (l, n) is physically sequential, for example, a seek time and a rotational latency time are required to read the logical range. In one embodiment, t=Tsk+Trl+nTd, where Tsk represents seek time, Trl represents rotational latency time, and Td represents time to read or write one block. In an embodiment of the invention, for LBA ranges that are not physically sequential, a first time metric (Δ5) may be expressed as:
In one embodiment, the data-fabrication operations, if any, may be performed underneath the seek and rotational latency times, thereby eliminating the first term in the above expression for the first time metric. In an embodiment, Rotational Positioning Optimization (RPO) sorting may be employed to reduce the total seek and rotational latency times.
In an embodiment, the first time metric provides an adequate basis for comparing different logical ranges having the same size. In one embodiment, for LBA ranges having different logical sizes, a second time metric (Δ6) is provided by modifying the first time metric. In that embodiment, the second time metric may be expressed as:
Metric Combinations
The fragmentation metrics consider only the impact on the translation table, while the dispersion and time metrics consider the time required to read the physical locations. In one embodiment, although the translation table size and read time are correlated, translation table size may be prioritized over read performance. For example, a fragmentation metric may be used to select a group of segments of the translation table, where each segment corresponds to a range of LBAs, and then a dispersion or time metric may be selected to prioritize the segments in the group. This combination of metrics has the advantage of prioritizing the translation table size reduction and reducing the amount of calculations required for the more expensive metrics, such as the dispersion and time metrics, since they are performed on fewer LBA ranges (i.e., few segments).
In the embodiment shown in the flow diagram in
The control circuitry 12 reads the range of LBAs corresponding to the selected segment from non-volatile media (step 40). In an embodiment of the invention, the non-volatile media is a disk surface 41. In one embodiment, the control circuitry 12 reads the range of LBAs from the non-volatile media and writes them into a cache (e.g., SM 30). In the embodiment shown in the flow diagram in
In the embodiment shown in the flow diagram in
In the embodiment in
In the embodiment in
It is noted that the steps in the flow diagrams in
Any suitable control circuitry may be employed in the embodiments of the present invention, such as any suitable integrated circuit or circuits. For example, the control circuitry may be implemented within a read channel integrated circuit, or in a component separate from the read channel, such as a disk controller, or certain steps described above may be performed by a read channel and others by a disk controller. In one embodiment, the read channel and disk controller are implemented as separate integrated circuits, and in an alternative embodiment they are fabricated into a single integrated circuit or system on a chip (SOC). In addition, the control circuitry may include a suitable preamp circuit implemented as a separate integrated circuit, integrated into the read channel or disk controller circuit, or integrated into an SOC.
In one embodiment, the control circuitry comprises a microprocessor executing instructions, the instructions being operable to cause the microprocessor to perform the steps of the flow diagrams described herein. The instructions may be stored in any computer-readable medium. In one embodiment, they may be stored on a non-volatile semiconductor memory external to the microprocessor, or integrated with the microprocessor in a SOC. In another embodiment, the instructions are stored on a disk surface and read into a volatile semiconductor memory when the disk drive is powered on. In yet another embodiment, the control circuitry comprises suitable logic circuitry, such as state machine circuitry.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5530850 | Ford et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5551003 | Mattson et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5604902 | Burkes et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5734861 | Cohn et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5799185 | Watanabe | Aug 1998 | A |
5819290 | Fujita | Oct 1998 | A |
5819310 | Vishlitzky et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
6067199 | Blumenau | May 2000 | A |
6125434 | Willard et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6324631 | Kuiper | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6430663 | Ding | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6493160 | Schreck | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6711660 | Milne et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6854022 | Thelin | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6978283 | Edwards et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7124272 | Kennedy et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7146525 | Han et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7149822 | Edanami | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7315917 | Bennett et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7363421 | Di Sena et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7373477 | Takase et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7409522 | Fair et al. | Aug 2008 | B1 |
7424498 | Patterson | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7443625 | Hamaguchi et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7447836 | Zhang et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7516355 | Noya et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7519639 | Bacon et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7552282 | Bermingham et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7567995 | Maynard et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7593975 | Edwards et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
RE41011 | Han et al. | Nov 2009 | E |
7624137 | Bacon et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7685360 | Brunnett et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7707166 | Patterson | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7721059 | Mylly et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7783682 | Patterson | Aug 2010 | B1 |
8359430 | Fair | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8521972 | Boyle et al. | Aug 2013 | B1 |
20020138694 | Isshiki | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020188800 | Tomaszewski et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030051110 | Gaspard et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030101383 | Carlson | May 2003 | A1 |
20040179386 | Jun | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040268079 | Riedle et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050021900 | Okuyama et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050071537 | New et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050216657 | Forrer, Jr. et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060020849 | Kim | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060106981 | Khurshudov et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060155917 | Di Sena et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060212674 | Chung et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20070027940 | Lutz et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070050390 | Maynard et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070198614 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070208790 | Reuter et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080010395 | Mylly et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080077762 | Scott et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080091872 | Bennett et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080263059 | Coca et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080263305 | Shu et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090049238 | Zhang et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055450 | Biller | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090094299 | Kim et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090164742 | Wach et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20100153347 | Koester et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100287217 | Borchers et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20100293354 | Perez et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110231623 | Goss et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110283049 | Kang et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120117322 | Satran et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120173832 | Post et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20130107391 | Springberg et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 9910812 | Mar 1999 | WO |