Re: Higher than expected metadata usage?

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

 



On 27/03/2018 12:39, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
Hi

I've forget to mention  there is  "thin_ls" tool (comes with device-mapper-persistent-data package (with thin_check) - for those who want to know precise amount of allocation and what amount of blocks is owned exclusively by a single thinLV and what is shared.

It's worth to note - numbers printed by 'lvs' are *JUST* really rough estimations of data usage for both  thin_pool & thin_volumes.

Kernel is not maintaining full data-set - only a needed portion of it - and since 'detailed' precise evaluation is expensive it's deferred to the tool thin_ls...

Ok, thanks for the remind about "thin_ls" (I often forgot about these "minor" but very useful utilities...)

And last but not least comment -  when you pointed out 4MB extent usage - it's relatively huge chunk - and if the 'fstrim' wants to succeed - those 4MB blocks fitting thin-pool chunks needs to be fully released. > So i.e. if there are some 'sparse' filesystem metadata blocks places - they may prevent TRIM to successeed - so while your filesystem may have a lot of free space for its data - the actually amount if physically trimmed space can be much much smaller.

So beware if the 4MB chunk-size for a thin-pool is good fit here....
The smaller the chunk is - the better change of TRIM there is...

Sure, I understand that. Anyway, please note that 4MB chunk size was *automatically* chosen by the system during pool creation. It seems to me that the default is to constrain the metadata volume to be < 128 MB, right?

For heavily fragmented XFS even 64K chunks might be a challenge....

True, but chunk size *always* is a performance/efficiency tradeoff. Making a 64K chunk-sided volume will end with even more fragmentation for the underlying disk subsystem. Obviously, if many snapshot are expected, a small chunk size is the right choice (CoW filesystem as BTRFS and ZFS face similar problems, by the way).

Thanks.

--
Danti Gionatan
Supporto Tecnico
Assyoma S.r.l. - www.assyoma.it
email: g.danti@assyoma.it - info@assyoma.it
GPG public key ID: FF5F32A8

_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/




[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Users]     [Kernel Development]     [Linux Clusters]     [Device Mapper]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux