Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] forcealign for xfs

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

 



On 24/09/2024 10:48, John Garry wrote:


but more importantly not introducing
additional complexities by requiring to be able to write over the
written/unwritten boundaries created by either rtextentsize > 1 or
the forcealign stuff if you actually want atomic writes.

The very original solution required a single mapping and in written state
for atomic writes. Reverting to that would save a lot of hassle in the
kernel. It just means that the user needs to manually pre-zero.

What atomic I/O sizes do your users require?  Would they fit into
a large sector size now supported by XFS (i.e. 32k for now).


It could be used, but then we have 16KB filesystem block size, which some just may not want. And we just don't want 16KB sector size, but I don't think that we require that if we use RWF_ATOMIC.

Hi Christoph,

I want to come back to this topic of forcealign.

We have been doing much MySQL workload testing with following configurations:
a. 4k FS blocksize and RT 16K rextsize
b. 4k FS blocksize and forcealign 16K extsize
c. 16K FS blocksize

a. and b. show comparable performance, with b. slightly better overall. Generally c. shows significantly slower performance at lower thread count/lower load testing. We put that down to MySQL REDO log write amplification from larger FS blocksize. At higher loads, performance is comparable.

So we tried:
d. 4K FS blocksize for REDO log on 1x partition and 16K FS blocksize for DB pagesize atomic writes on 1x partition

For d., performance was good and comparable to a. and b., if not overall a bit better.

Unfortunately d. does not allow us to do a single FS snapshot, so not of much value for production.

I was talking to Martin on this log write topic, and he considers that there are many other scenarios where a larger FS blocksize can affect log writes latency, so quite undesirable (to have a large FS blocksize).

So we would still like to try for forcealign.

However, enabling large atomic writes for rtvol is quite simple and there would be overlap with enabling large atomic writes for forcealign - see https://github.com/johnpgarry/linux/commits/atomic-write-large-atomics-pre-v6.13/ - so I am thinking of trying for that first.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
John




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux