I think it is a good Idea.
May be we can add more enhancement in this xlator to improve things in future.
From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ashish Pandey" <aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Xavier Hernandez" <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 9:05:54 AM
Subject: Re: Disperse volume : Sequential Writes
--
To: "Ashish Pandey" <aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Xavier Hernandez" <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 9:05:54 AM
Subject: Re: Disperse volume : Sequential Writes
Ashish, Xavi,
I think it is better to implement this change as a separate read-after-write caching xlator which we can load between EC and client xlator. That way EC will not get a lot more functionality than necessary and may be this xlator can be used somewhere else in the stack if possible.On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Ashish Pandey <aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think it should be done as we have agreement on basic design.From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Xavier Hernandez" <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ashish Pandey" <aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:50:09 PM
Subject: Re: Disperse volume : Sequential WritesOn Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On 16/06/17 10:51, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Xavier Hernandez
<xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:xhernandez@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On 15/06/17 11:50, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Ashish Pandey
<aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx><mailto:aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aspandey@xxxxxxxxxx>>> wrote:
Hi All,
We have been facing some issues in disperse (EC) volume.
We know that currently EC is not good for random IO as it
requires
READ-MODIFY-WRITE fop
cycle if an offset and offset+length falls in the middle of
strip size.
Unfortunately, it could also happen with sequential writes.
Consider an EC volume with configuration 4+2. The stripe
size for
this would be 512 * 4 = 2048. That is, 2048 bytes of user data
stored in one stripe.
Let's say 2048 + 512 = 2560 bytes are already written on this
volume. 512 Bytes would be in second stripe.
Now, if there are sequential writes with offset 2560 and of
size 1
Byte, we have to read the whole stripe, encode it with 1
Byte and
then again have to write it back.
Next, write with offset 2561 and size of 1 Byte will again
READ-MODIFY-WRITE the whole stripe. This is causing bad
performance.
There are some tools and scenario's where such kind of load is
coming and users are not aware of that.
Example: fio and zip
Solution:
One possible solution to deal with this issue is to keep
last stripe
in memory.
This way, we need not to read it again and we can save READ fop
going over the network.
Considering the above example, we have to keep last 2048 bytes
(maximum) in memory per file. This should not be a big
deal as we already keep some data like xattr's and size info in
memory and based on that we take decisions.
Please provide your thoughts on this and also if you have
any other
solution.
Just adding more details.
The stripe will be in memory only when lock on the inode is active.
I think that's ok.
One
thing we are yet to decide on is: do we want to read the stripe
everytime we get the lock or just after an extending write is
performed.
I am thinking keeping the stripe in memory just after an
extending write
is better as it doesn't involve extra network operation.
I wouldn't read the last stripe unconditionally every time we lock
the inode. There's no benefit at all on random writes (in fact it's
worse) and a sequential write will issue the read anyway when
needed. The only difference is a small delay for the first operation
after a lock.
Yes, perfect.
What I would do is to keep the last stripe of every write (we can
consider to do it per fd), even if it's not the last stripe of the
file (to also optimize sequential rewrites).
Ah! good point. But if we remember it per fd, one fd's cached data can
be over-written by another fd on the disk so we need to also do cache
invalidation.
We only cache data if we have the inodelk, so all related fd's must be from the same client, and we'll control all its writes so cache invalidation in this case is pretty easy.
There exists the possibility to have two fd's from the same client writing to the same region. To control this we would need some range checking in the writes, but all this is local, so it's easy to control it.
Anyway, this is probably not a common case, so we could start by caching only the last stripe of the last write, ignoring the fd.
May be implementation should consider this possibility.Maybe we could keep a list of cached stripes sorted by offset in the inode (if the maximum number of entries is small, we could keep the list not sorted). Each fd should store the offset of the last write. Cached stripes should have a ref counter just to account for the case that two fd's point to the same offset.
Yet to think about how to do this. But it is a good point. We should
consider this.
When a new write arrives, we check the offset stored in the fd and see if it corresponds to a sequential write. If so, we look at the inode list to find the cached stripe, otherwise we can release the cached stripe.
We can limit the number of cached entries and release the least recently used when we reach some maximum.Yeah, this works :-).Ashish,Can all of this be implemented by 3.12?Suppose we are writing multiple 1MB blocks at offset 1. If each write is split into 8 blocks of 128KB, all writes will be not aligned, and can be received in any order. Suppose that the first write happens to be at offset 128K + 1. We don't have anything cached, so we read the needed stripes and cache the last one. Now the next write is at offset 1. In this case we won't get any benefit from the previous write, since the stripe we need is not cached. However the write from the user point of view is sequential.
One thing I've observed is that a 'dd' with block size of 1MB gets
split into multiple 128KB blocks that are sent in parallel and not
necessarily processed in the sequential order. This means that big
block sizes won't benefit much from this optimization since they
will be seen as partially non-sequential writes. Anyway the change
won't hurt.
In this case as per the solution we won't cache anything right? Because
we didn't request anything from the disk. We will only keep the data in
cache if it is not aligned write which is at the current EOF. At least
that is what I had in mind.
It won't hurt but it won't take all benefits from the new caching mechanism.
As a mitigating factor, we could consider to extend the previous solution I've explained to allow caching multiple stripes per fd. A small number like 8 would be enough.
Xavi
Xavi
---
Ashish
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel>
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel>>
--
Pranith
--
Pranith
--Pranith
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
