It would also be possible with our file system to preallocate inode
numbers (inumbers).
This isn't necessarily directly related to NFS, but one could imagine
further extending NSF to allow a CREATE to happen entirely on the client
by letting the client maintain a cache of preallocated inumbers.
Just for the fun of it, I'll tell you a little bit more about how we
preallocate inumbers.
For Oracle's File Storage Service (FSS), Inumbers are cheap to allocate,
and it's not a big deal if a few of them end up unused. Unused inode
numbers don't use up any space. I would imagine that most B-tree-based
file systems are like this. In contrast in an ext-style file system,
unused inumbers imply unused storage.
Furthermore, FSS never reuses inumbers when files are deleted. It just
keeps allocating new ones.
There's a tradeoff between preallocating lots of inumbers to get better
performance but potentially wasting the inumbers if the client were to
crash just after getting a batch. If you only ask for one at a time,
you don't get much performance, but if you ask for 1000 at a time,
there's a chance that the client could start, ask for 1000 and then
immediately crash, and then repeat the cycle, quickly using up many
inumbers. Here's a 2-competetive algorithm to solve this problem (by
"2-competetive" I mean that it's guaranteed to waste at most half of the
inode numbers):
* A client that has successfully created K files without crashing is
allowed, when it's preallocated cache of inumbers goes empty, to ask for
another K inumbers.
The worst-case lossage occurs if the client crashes just after getting K
inumbers, and those inumbers go to waste. But we know that the client
successfully created K files, so we are wasting at most half the inumbers.
For a long-running client, each time it asks for another batch of
inumbers, it doubles the size of the request. For the first file
created, it does it the old-fashioned way. For the second file, it
preallocated a single inumber. For the third file, it preallocates 2
inumbers. On the fifth file creation, it preallocates 4 inumbers. And
so forth.
One obstacle to getting FSS to use any of these ideas is that we
currently support only NFSv3. We need to get an NFSv4 server going,
and then we'll be interested in doing the server work to speed up these
kinds of metadata workloads.
-Bradley
On 4/4/19 11:22 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
On Apr 4, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:06 PM bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 12:56:24PM -0400, Bradley C. Kuszmaul wrote:
This proposal does look like it would be helpful. How does this
kind of proposal play out in terms of actually seeing the light of
day in deployed systems?
We need some people to commit to implementing it.
We have 2-3 testing events a year, so ideally we'd agree to show up with
implementations at one of those to test and hash out any issues.
We revise the draft based on any experience or feedback we get. If
nothing else, it looks like it needs some updates for v4.2.
The on-the-wire protocol change seems small, and my feeling is that if
there's running code then documenting the protocol and getting it
through the IETF process shouldn't be a big deal.
--b.
On 4/2/19 10:07 PM, bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 02:02:54AM +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
The create itself needs to be sync, but the attribute delegations mean
that the client, not the server, is authoritative for the timestamps.
So the client now owns the atime and mtime, and just sets them as part
of the (asynchronous) delegreturn some time after you are done writing.
Were you perhaps thinking about this earlier proposal?
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dmyklebust-2Dnfsv4-2Dunstable-2Dfile-2Dcreation-2D01&d=DwIBAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=YIKOmJLMLfe5wQR3VJI7jGjCnepZlMwumApzvaKItrY&m=qlAJ6dZPGjbcTzNIpkTyk-RTii6lWw1CLIjF6jp3P2Y&s=aTTFNJlRH-dXrQmE4cSYEUd8Kv3ij5cqTJtvgIixMa8&e=
That's it, thanks!
Bradley is concerned about performance of something like untar on a
backend filesystem with particularly high-latency metadata operations,
so something like your unstable file createion proposal (or actual write
delegations) seems like it should help.
--b.
The serialized create with something like an untar is a
performance-killer though.
FWIW, I'm working on something similar right now for Ceph. If a ceph
client has adequate caps [1] for a directory and the dentry inode,
then we should (in principle) be able to buffer up directory morphing
operations and flush them out to the server asynchronously.
I'm starting with unlink (mostly because it's simpler), and am mainly
just returning early when we do have the right caps -- after issuing
the call but before the reply comes in. We should be able to do the
same for link, rename and create too. Create will require the Ceph MDS
to delegate out a range of inode numbers (and that bit hasn't been
implemented yet).
My thinking with all of this is that the buffering of directory
morphing operations is not as helpful as something like a pagecache
write is, as we aren't that interested in merging operations that
change the same dentry. However, being able to do them asynchronously
should work really well. That should allow us to better parallellize
create/link/unlink/rename on different dentries even when they are
issued serially by a single task.
What happens if an asynchronous directory change fails (eg. ENOSPC)?
RFC5661 doesn't currently provide for writeable directory delegations,
AFAICT, but they could eventually be implemented in a similar way.
[1]: cephfs capabilies (aka caps) are like a delegation for a subset
of inode metadata
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Chuck Lever
