Re: Odd "data used" reporting behavior by ceph -w

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Sage,

On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 21:59 -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> 
> > > > 4) recreate files, same size/name as step 2);
> > > >
> > > > Note that this step takes _much_ longer: 1448 sec vs. 41 sec.
> > > > Maybe redirecting stdout onto a file from an echo of nothing
> > > > is a really stupid way to truncate a file, but still...
> > > > seems like something might not be right?
> 
> When you say 'recreate', you mean you 0-truncate the file, and then reopen 
> and write new data, right?  It's not a _new_ file that happens to have the 
> same name?

Yes, I 0-truncate the file, then open that same file again.

> 
> My first guess is that it's related to the fact that the truncate is done 
> on a different client and the 'wanted' caps aren't getting released, 
> forcing IO to be synchronous.  Can you repeat that experiment, but 
> write + truncate + rewrite all on the same node?

Yes, it definitely matters on which clients the operations
occur.  If the create, 0-truncate, rewrite all happen on
the same client, all is well.

If I truncate a file on a different client, I see the slowdown.

-- Jim

> 
> It may also be that there is some contention on the OSDs due to the object 
> deletes going in parallel with the new data being written.  I wouldn't 
> expect that to be an issue though... :/
> 
> Thanks!
> sage




--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux