Re: why is there heavy read traffic during object delete?

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

 



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Lord <Steve.Lord@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I presume we're doing reads in order to gather some object metadata
>> from the cephfs-data pool; and the (small) newly-created objects in
>> cache-data are definitely whiteout objects indicating the object no
>> longer exists logically.
>>
>> What kinds of reads are you actually seeing? Does it appear to be
>> transferring data, or merely doing a bunch of seeks? I thought we were
>> trying to avoid doing reads-to-delete, but perhaps the way we're
>> handling snapshots or something is invoking behavior that isn't
>> amicable to a full-FS delete.
>>
>> I presume you're trying to characterize the system's behavior, but of
>> course if you just want to empty it out entirely you're better off
>> deleting the pools and the CephFS instance entirely and then starting
>> it over again from scratch.
>> -Greg
>
> I believe it is reading all the data, just from the volume of traffic and
> the cpu load on the OSDs maybe suggests it is doing more than
> just that.
>
> iostat is showing a lot of data moving, I am seeing about the same volume
> of read and write activity here. Because the OSDs underneath both pools
> are the same ones, I know that’s not exactly optimal, it is hard to tell what
> which pool is responsible for which I/O. Large reads and small writes suggest
> it is reading up all the data from the objects,  the write traffic is I presume all
> journal activity relating to deleting objects and creating the empty ones.
>
> The 9:1 ratio between things being deleted and created seems odd though.
>
> A previous version of this exercise with just a regular replicated data pool
> did not read anything, just a lot of write activity and eventually the content
> disappeared. So definitely related to the pool configuration here and probably
> not to the filesystem layer.

Sam, does this make any sense to you in terms of how RADOS handles deletes?
-Greg
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux