On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:53:11AM +0800, Amit Kale wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 05:52:00PM +0800, Amit Kale wrote: > > The mq policy uses a multiqueue (effectively a partially sorted > > lru list) to keep track of candidate block hit counts. When > > candidates get enough hits they're promoted. The promotion > > threshold his periodically recalculated by looking at the hit > > counts for the blocks already in the cache. > > Multi-queue algorithm typically results in a significant metadata > overhead. How much percentage overhead does that imply? It is a drawback, at the moment we have a list head, hit count and some flags per block. I can compress this, it's on my todo list. Looking at the code I see you have doubly linked list fields per block too, albeit 16 bit ones. We use much bigger blocks than you, so I'm happy to get the benefit of the extra space. > > I read through EnhanceIO yesterday, and think this is where > > you're lacking. > > We have an LRU policy at a cache set level. Effectiveness of the LRU > policy depends on the average duration of a block in a working > dataset. If the average duration is small enough so a block is most > of the times "hit" before it's chucked out, LRU works better than > any other policies. Yes, in some situations lru is best, in others lfu is best. That's why people try and blend in something like arc. Now my real point was although you're using lru to choose what to evict, you're not using anything to choose what to put _in_ the cache, or have I got this totally wrong? > > A couple of other things I should mention; dm-cache uses a large block > > size compared to eio. eg, 64k - 1m. This is a mixed blessing; > > Yes. We had a lot of debate internally on the block size. For now we > have restricted to 2k, 4k and 8k. We found that larger block sizes > result in too much of internal fragmentation, in-spite of a > significant reduction in metadata size. 8k is adequate for Oracle > and mysql. Right, you need to describe these scenarios so you can show off eio in the best light. > > We do not keep the dirty state of cache blocks up to date on the > > metadata device. Instead we have a 'mounted' flag that's set in the > > metadata when opened. When a clean shutdown occurs (eg, dmsetup > > suspend my-cache) the dirty bits are written out and the mounted flag > > cleared. On a crash the mounted flag will still be set on reopen and > > all dirty flags degrade to 'dirty'. > > Not sure I understand this. Is there a guarantee that once an IO is > reported as "done" to upstream layer > (filesystem/database/application), it is persistent. The persistence > should be guaranteed even if there is an OS crash immediately after > status is reported. Persistence should be guaranteed for the entire > IO range. The next time the application tries to read it, it should > get updated data, not stale data. Yes, we're careful to persist all changes in the mapping before completing io. However the dirty bits are just used to ascertain what blocks need writing back to the origin. In the event of a crash it's safe to assume they all do. dm-cache is a slow moving cache, change of dirty status occurs far, far more frequently than change of mapping. So avoiding these updates is a big win. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I > > think eio is holding io completion until the dirty bits have been > > committed to disk? > > That's correct. In addition to this, we try to batch metadata updates if multiple IOs occur in the same cache set. y, I batch updates too. > > > 3. Availability - What's the downtime when adding, deleting caches, > > making changes to cache configuration, conversion between cache > > modes, recovering after a crash, recovering from an error condition. > > > > Normal dm suspend, alter table, resume cycle. The LVM tools do this > > all the time. > > Cache creation and deletion will require stopping applications, > unmounting filesystems and then remounting and starting the > applications. A sysad in addition to this will require updating > fstab entries. Do fstab entries work automatically in case they use > labels instead of full device paths. The common case will be someone using a volume manager like LVM, so the device nodes are already dm ones. In this case there's no need for unmounting or stopping applications. Changing the stack of dm targets around on a live system is a key feature. For example this is how we implement the pvmove functionality. > > Well I saw the comment in your code describing the security flaw you > > think you've got. I hope we don't have any, I'd like to understand > > your case more. > > Could you elaborate on which comment you are referring to? Top of eio_main.c * 5) Fix a security hole : A malicious process with 'ro' access to a * file can potentially corrupt file data. This can be fixed by * copying the data on a cache read miss. > > > 5. Portability - Which HDDs, SSDs, partitions, other block devices it > > works with. > > > > I think we all work with any block device. But eio and bcache can > > overlay any device node, not just a dm one. As mentioned in earlier > > email I really think this is a dm issue, not specific to dm-cache. > > DM was never meant to be cascaded. So it's ok for DM. Not sure what you mean here? I wrote dm specifically with stacking scenarios in mind. > > > 7. Persistence of cached data - Does cached data remain across > > reboots/crashes/intermittent failures. Is the "sticky"ness of data > > configurable. > > > > Surely this is a given? A cache would be trivial to write if it > > didn't need to be crash proof. > > There has to be a way to make it either persistent or volatile > depending on how users want it. Enterprise users are sometimes > paranoid about HDD and SSD going out of sync after a system shutdown > and before a bootup. This is typically for large complicated iSCSI > based shared HDD setups. Well in those Enterprise users can just use dm-cache in writethrough mode and throw it away when they finish. Writing our metadata is not the bottle neck (copy for migrations is), and it's definitely worth keeping so there are up to date hit counts for the policy to work off after reboot. > That's correct. We don't have to worry about wear leveling. All of the competent SSDs around do that. > > What I wanted to bring up was how many SSD writes does a cache > read/write result. Write back cache mode is specifically taxing on > SSDs in this aspect. No more than read/writes to a plain SSD. Are you getting hit by extra io because you persist dirty flags? > Databases run into torn-page error when an IO is found to be only > partially written when it was supposed to be fully written. This is > particularly important when an IO was reported to be "done". The > original flashcache code we started with over an year ago showed > torn-page problem in extremely rare crashes with writeback mode. Our > present code contains specific design elements to avoid it. We get this for free in core dm. - Joe -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
