On 6/27/18 6:23 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:02:21PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 09:19:54PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The mkfs ratios are about as optimal as we can get for the
>>>> information we have about the storage - growing by
>>>> 10x (i.e. increaseing the number of AGs by 10x) puts us at the
>>>> outside edge of the acceptible filesystem performance and longevity
>>>> charcteristics. Growing by 100x puts us way outside the window,
>>>> and examples like this where we are taking about growing by 10000x
>>>> is just way beyond anything the static AG layout architecture was
>>>> ever intended to support....
>
> I don't have time to test this but I can probably do so after my vacation
> (now). Would it be best to just codify this eventually instead of having
> this as tribal knowledge?
Honestly, if we wanted something like this I think it'd be based on terminal
AG count, not growfs multiplier for a specific instance.
Otherwise 100 consecutive 4x growfs's would yield the same problems without
tripping any of these tests.
-Eric
> diff --git a/growfs/xfs_growfs.c b/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
> index 8ec445afb74b..14f4b6dce08f 100644
> --- a/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
> +++ b/growfs/xfs_growfs.c
> @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> fs_path_t *fs; /* mount point information */
> libxfs_init_t xi; /* libxfs structure */
> char rpath[PATH_MAX];
> + int fflag; /* -f flag */
> + long long dsize_max_suggested; /* max suggested size */
> + long long dsize_max_arch; /* max design over flow */
>
> progname = basename(argv[0]);
> setlocale(LC_ALL, "");
> @@ -93,6 +96,8 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> case 'd':
> dflag = 1;
> break;
> + case 'f':
> + fflag = 1;
> case 'e':
> esize = atol(optarg);
> rflag = 1;
> @@ -249,6 +254,24 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> if (dflag | mflag | aflag) {
> xfs_growfs_data_t in;
>
> + /*
> + * Growing the filesyste by 10x increases the AG size by 10 as
> + * well, and this puts us outside edge of the acceptible
> + * filesystem performance and longevity charcteristics.
> + *
> + * Growing by 100x puts us way outside the window...
> + *
> + * Growing by 10000x is just way beyond anything the static AG
> + * layout architecture was ever intended to support, so unless
> + * you use -f, we won't allow in between 10x-1000x.
> + */
> + dsize_max_suggested = ddsize * 10 / (geo.blocksize / BBSIZE);
> + if (dsize_max_suggested < ddsize)
> + dsize_max_suggested = ULLONG_MAX;
> + dsize_max_arch = ddsize * 1000 / (geo.blocksize / BBSIZE);
> + if (dsize_max_arch < ddsize)
> + dsize_max_arch = ULLONG_MAX;
> +
> if (!mflag)
> maxpct = geo.imaxpct;
> if (!dflag && !aflag) /* Only mflag, no data size change */
> @@ -261,6 +284,26 @@ main(int argc, char **argv)
> (long long)dsize,
> (long long)(ddsize/(geo.blocksize/BBSIZE)));
> error = 1;
> + } else if (!fflag &&
> + dsize > dsize_max_arch) {
> + fprintf(stderr, _(
> + "data size %lld beyond what XFS recomends for "
> + "this fs, max should be %lld but if used you "
> + "will suffer. Max suggested is %lld or use "
> + "-f to override.\n"),
> + (long long)dsize,
> + dsize_max_arch,
> + dsize_max_suggested);
> + error = 1;
> + } else if (!fflag &&
> + dsize > dsize_max_suggested) {
> + fprintf(stderr, _(
> + "data size %lld beyond what XFS recomends for "
> + "this fs, max suggested is %lld or use "
> + "-f to override.\n"),
> + (long long)dsize,
> + dsize_max_suggested);
> + error = 1;
> }
>
> if (!error && dsize < geo.datablocks) {
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
