On 12/03/2010 12:07 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
This is a classic ENOSPC vs NFS client writeback overcommit caching
issue. Have a look at the block map output - I bet theres holes in
the file and it's only consuming 1.5GB of disk space. use xfs_bmap
to check this. du should tell you the same thing.
Yes you are right!
root@server:/mnt/ram# ll -h
total 1.5G
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 21 2010-12-02 12:54 ./
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4.0K 2010-11-29 23:51 ../
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.9G 2010-12-02 15:04 zerofile
root@server:/mnt/ram# ls -lsh
total 1.5G
1.5G -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.9G 2010-12-02 15:04 zerofile
(it's a sparse file)
root@server:/mnt/ram# xfs_bmap zerofile
zerofile:
0: [0..786367]: 786496..1572863
1: [786368..1572735]: 2359360..3145727
2: [1572736..2232319]: 1593408..2252991
3: [2232320..2529279]: 285184..582143
4: [2529280..2531327]: hole
5: [2531328..2816407]: 96..285175
6: [2816408..2971511]: 582144..737247
7: [2971512..2971647]: hole
8: [2971648..2975183]: 761904..765439
9: [2975184..2975743]: hole
10: [2975744..2975751]: 765440..765447
11: [2975752..2977791]: hole
12: [2977792..2977799]: 765480..765487
13: [2977800..2979839]: hole
14: [2979840..2979847]: 765448..765455
15: [2979848..2981887]: hole
16: [2981888..2981895]: 765472..765479
17: [2981896..2983935]: hole
18: [2983936..2983943]: 765456..765463
19: [2983944..2985983]: hole
20: [2985984..2985991]: 765464..765471
21: [2985992..3202903]: hole
22: [3202904..3215231]: 737248..749575
23: [3215232..3239767]: hole
24: [3239768..3252095]: 774104..786431
25: [3252096..3293015]: hole
26: [3293016..3305343]: 749576..761903
27: [3305344..3370839]: hole
28: [3370840..3383167]: 2252992..2265319
29: [3383168..3473239]: hole
30: [3473240..3485567]: 2265328..2277655
31: [3485568..3632983]: hole
32: [3632984..3645311]: 2277656..2289983
33: [3645312..3866455]: hole
34: [3866456..3878783]: 2289984..2302311
(many delayed allocation extents cannot be filled because space on
device is finished)
However ...
Basically, the NFS client overcommits the server filesystem space by
doing local writeback caching. Hence it caches 1.9GB of data before
it gets the first ENOSPC error back from the server at around 1.5GB
of written data. At that point, the data that gets ENOSPC errors is
tossed by the NFS client, and a ENOSPC error is placed on the
address space to be reported to the next write/sync call. That gets
to the dd process when it's 1.9GB into the write.
I'm no great expert but isn't this a design flaw in NFS?
Ok in this case we were lucky it was all zeroes so XFS made a sparse
file and could fit a 1.9GB into 1.5GB device size.
In general with nonzero data it seems to me you will get data corruption
because the NFS client thinks it has written the data while the NFS
server really can't write more data than the device size.
It's nice that the NFS server does local writeback caching but it should
also cache the filesystem's free space (and check it periodically, since
nfs-server is presumably not the only process writing in that
filesystem) so that it doesn't accept more data than it can really
write. Alternatively, when free space drops below 1GB (or a reasonable
size based on network speed), nfs-server should turn off filesystem
writeback caching.
I can't repeat the test with urandom because it's too slow (8MB/sec !?).
How come Linux hasn't got an "uurandom" device capable of e.g. 400MB/sec
with only very weak randomness?
But I have repeated the test over ethernet with a bunch of symlinks to a
100MB file created from urandom:
At client side:
# time cat randfile{001..020} | pv -b > /mnt/nfsram/randfile
1.95GB
real 0m22.978s
user 0m0.310s
sys 0m5.360s
At server side:
# ls -lsh ram
total 1.5G
1.5G -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1.7G 2010-12-03 14:43 randfile
# xfs_bmap ram/randfile
ram/randfile:
0: [0..786367]: 786496..1572863
1: [786368..790527]: 96..4255
2: [790528..1130495]: hole
3: [1130496..1916863]: 2359360..3145727
4: [1916864..2682751]: 1593408..2359295
5: [2682752..3183999]: 285184..786431
6: [3184000..3387207]: 4256..207463
7: [3387208..3387391]: hole
8: [3387392..3391567]: 207648..211823
9: [3391568..3393535]: hole
10: [3393536..3393543]: 211824..211831
11: [3393544..3395583]: hole
12: [3395584..3395591]: 211832..211839
13: [3395592..3397631]: hole
14: [3397632..3397639]: 211856..211863
15: [3397640..3399679]: hole
16: [3399680..3399687]: 211848..211855
17: [3399688..3401727]: hole
18: [3401728..3409623]: 221984..229879
# dd if=/mnt/ram/randfile | wc -c
3409624+0 records in
3409624+0 records out
1745727488
1745727488 bytes (1.7 GB) copied, 5.72443 s, 305 MB/s
The file is still sparse, and this time it certainly has data corruption
(holes will be read as zeroes).
I understand that the client receives Input/output error when this
condition is hit, but the file written at server side has apparent size
1.8GB but the valid data in it is not 1.8GB. Is it good semantics?
Wouldn't it be better for nfs-server to turn off writeback caching when
it approaches a disk-full situation?
And then I see another problem:
As you see, xfs_fsr shows lots of holes, even with randomfile (this is
taken from urandom so you can be sure it hasn't got many zeroes) already
from offset 790528 sectors which is far from the disk full situation...
First I checked that this does not happen by pushing less than 1.5GB of
data. Ok it does not.
Then I tried with exactly 15*100MB (files are 100MB, are symliks to a
file which was created with dd if=/dev/urandom of=randfile.rnd bs=1M
count=100)
and this happened:
client side:
# time cat randfile{001..015} | pv -b > /mnt/nfsram/randfile
1.46GB
real 0m18.265s
user 0m0.260s
sys 0m4.460s
(please note: no I/O error at client side! blockdev --getsize64
/dev/ram0 == 1610612736)
server side:
# ls -ls ram
total 1529676
1529676 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1571819520 2010-12-03 14:51 randfile
# dd if=/mnt/ram/randfile | wc -c
3069960+0 records in
3069960+0 records out
1571819520
1571819520 bytes (1.6 GB) copied, 5.30442 s, 296 MB/s
# xfs_bmap ram/randfile
ram/randfile:
0: [0..112639]: 96..112735
1: [112640..208895]: 114784..211039
2: [208896..399359]: 285184..475647
3: [399360..401407]: 112736..114783
4: [401408..573439]: 475648..647679
5: [573440..937983]: 786496..1151039
6: [937984..1724351]: 2359360..3145727
7: [1724352..2383871]: 1593408..2252927
8: [2383872..2805695]: 1151040..1572863
9: [2805696..2944447]: 647680..786431
10: [2944448..2949119]: 211040..215711
11: [2949120..3055487]: 2252928..2359295
12: [3055488..3058871]: 215712..219095
13: [3058872..3059711]: hole
14: [3059712..3060143]: 219936..220367
15: [3060144..3061759]: hole
16: [3061760..3061767]: 220368..220375
17: [3061768..3063807]: hole
18: [3063808..3063815]: 220376..220383
19: [3063816..3065855]: hole
20: [3065856..3065863]: 220384..220391
21: [3065864..3067903]: hole
22: [3067904..3067911]: 220392..220399
23: [3067912..3069951]: hole
24: [3069952..3069959]: 220400..220407
Holes in a random file!
This is data corruption, and nobody is notified of this data corruption:
no error at client side or server side!
Is it good semantics? How could client get notified of this? Some kind
of fsync maybe?
Thank you
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
