On 2/22/16 10:12 AM, David Casier wrote:
> I have carried out tests very quickly and I have not had time to
> concentrate fully on XFS.
> maxpct =0.2 => 0.2% of 4To = 8Go
> Because my existing ssd partitions are small
>
> If i'm not mistaken, and with what Dave says :
> By default, data is written to 2^32 inodes of 256 bytes (= 1TiB).
> With maxpct, you set the maximum size used by inodes, depending on the
> percentage of disk
Yes, that's reasonable, I just wanted to be sure. I hadn't seen
it stated that your SSD was that small.
Thanks,
-Eric
> 2016-02-22 16:56 GMT+01:00 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 2/21/16 4:56 AM, David Casier wrote:
>>> I made a simple test with XFS
>>>
>>> dm-sdf6-sdg1 :
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> || sdf6 : SSD part || sdg1 : HDD (4TB) ||
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> If this is in response to my concern about not working on small
>> filesystems, the above is sufficiently large that inode32
>> won't be ignored.
>>
>>> [root@aotest ~]# mkfs.xfs -f -i maxpct=0.2 /dev/mapper/dm-sdf6-sdg1
>>
>> Hm, why set maxpct? This does affect how the inode32 allocator
>> works, but I'm wondering if that's why you set it. How did you arrive
>> at 0.2%? Just want to be sure you understand what you're tuning.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Eric
>>
>>> [root@aotest ~]# mount -o inode32 /dev/mapper/dm-sdf6-sdg1 /mnt
>>>
>>> 8 directory with 16, 32, ..., 128 sub-directory and 16, 32, ..., 128
>>> files (82 bytes)
>>> 1 xattr per dir and 3 xattr per file (user.cephosd...)
>>>
>>> 3 800 000 files and directory
>>> 16 GiB was written on SSD
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || find | wc -l ||
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || Objects per dir || % IOPS on SSD ||
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || 16 || 99 ||
>>> || 32 || 100 ||
>>> || 48 || 93 ||
>>> || 64 || 88 ||
>>> || 80 || 88 ||
>>> || 96 || 86 ||
>>> || 112 || 87 ||
>>> || 128 || 88 ||
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || find -exec getfattr '{}' \; ||
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || Objects per dir || % IOPS on SSD ||
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> || 16 || 96 ||
>>> || 32 || 97 ||
>>> || 48 || 96 ||
>>> || 64 || 95 ||
>>> || 80 || 94 ||
>>> || 96 || 93 ||
>>> || 112 || 94 ||
>>> || 128 || 95 ||
>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> It is true that filestore is not designed to make Big Data and the
>>> cache must work inode / xattr
>>>
>>> I hope to see quiclky Bluestore in production :)
>>>
>>> 2016-02-19 18:06 GMT+01:00 Eric Sandeen <esandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/15/16 9:35 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 04:18:28PM +0100, David Casier wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>> 1TB is very wide for SSD.
>>>>>
>>>>> It fills from the bottom, so you don't need 1TB to make it work
>>>>> in a similar manner to the ext4 hack being described.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure it will work for smaller filesystems, though - we essentially
>>>> ignore the inode32 mount option for sufficiently small filesystems.
>>>>
>>>> i.e. if inode numbers > 32 bits can't exist, we don't change the allocator,
>>>> at least not until the filesystem (possibly) gets grown later.
>>>>
>>>> So for inode32 to impact behavior, it needs to be on a filesystem
>>>> of sufficient size (at least 1 or 2T, depending on block size, inode
>>>> size, etc). Otherwise it will have no effect today.
>>>>
>>>> Dave, I wonder if we need another mount option to essentially mean
>>>> "invoke the inode32 allocator regardless of filesystem size?"
>>>>
>>>> -Eric
>>>>
>>>>>> Exemple with only 10GiB :
>>>>>> https://www.aevoo.fr/2016/02/14/ceph-ext4-optimisation-for-filestore/
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a nice toy, but it's not something that is going scale reliably
>>>>> for production. That caveat at the end:
>>>>>
>>>>> "With this model, filestore rearrange the tree very
>>>>> frequently : + 40 I/O every 32 objects link/unlink."
>>>>>
>>>>> Indicates how bad the IO patterns will be when modifying the
>>>>> directory structure, and says to me that it's not a useful
>>>>> optimisation at all when you might be creating several thousand
>>>>> files/s on a filesystem. That will end up IO bound, SSD or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--
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
