Hey Peter, On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Peter Grandi <pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> I want to create a raid10,n2 using 3 1TB SATA drives. >>>> I want to create an xfs filesystem on top of it. The >>>> filesystem will be used as NFS/Samba storage. > > Consider also an 'o2' layout (it is probably the same thing for a > 3 drive RAID10) or even a RAID5, as 3 drives and this usage seems > one of the few cases where RAID5 may be plausible. Thanks for reminding me about raid5. I'll probably give it a try and do some benchmarks. I'd also like to try raid10f2. >> [ ... ] I've run some benchmarks with dd trying the different >> chunks and 256k seems like the sweetspot. dd if=/dev/zero >> of=/dev/md0 bs=64k count=655360 oflag=direct > > That's for bulk sequential transfers. Random-ish, as in a > fileserver perhaps with many smaller files, may not be the same, > but probably larger chunks are good. >>> [ ... ] What kernel version? This can make a significant >>> difference in XFS metadata performance. > > As an aside, that's a myth that has been propagandaized by DaveC > in his entertaining presentation not long ago. > > There have been decent but no major improvements in XFS metadata > *performance*, but weaker implicit *semantics* have been made an > option, and these have a different safety/performance tradeoff > (less implicit safety, somewhat more performance), not "just" > better performance. > > http://lwn.net/Articles/476267/ > «In other words, instead of there only being a maximum of 2MB of > transaction changes not written to the log at any point in time, > there may be a much greater amount being accumulated in memory. > > Hence the potential for loss of metadata on a crash is much > greater than for the existing logging mechanism. > > It should be noted that this does not change the guarantee that > log recovery will result in a consistent filesystem. > > What it does mean is that as far as the recovered filesystem is > concerned, there may be many thousands of transactions that > simply did not occur as a result of the crash. > > This makes it even more important that applications that care > about their data use fsync() where they need to ensure > application level data integrity is maintained.» > >>> Your NFS/Samba workload on 3 slow disks isn't sufficient to >>> need that much in memory journal buffer space anyway. > > That's probably true, but does no harm. > >>> XFS uses relatime which is equivalent to noatime WRT IO >>> reduction performance, so don't specify 'noatime'. > > Uhm, not so sure, and 'noatime' does not hurt either. > >> I just wanted to be explicit about it so that I know what is >> set just in case the defaults change > > That's what I do as well, because relying on remembering exactly > what the defaults are can cause sometimes confusion. But it is a > matter of taste to a large degree, like 'noatime'. > >>> In fact, it appears you don't need to specify anything in >>> mkfs.xfs or fstab, but just use the defaults. Fancy that. > > For NFS/Samba, especially with ACLs (SMB protocol), and > especially if one expects largish directories, and in general I > would recommend a larger inode size, at least 1024B, if not even > 2048B. thanks for this tip. will look into adjusting inode size. > > Also, as a rule I want to make sure that the sector size is set > to 4096B, for future proofing (and recent drives not only have > 4096B sectors but usually lie). > it seems the 1TB drivers that I have still have 512byte sectors >>> And the one thing that might actually increase your >>> performance a little bit you didn't specify--sunit/swidth. > > Especially 'sunit', as XFS ideally would align metadata on chunk > boundaries. > >>> However, since you're using mdraid, mkfs.xfs will calculate >>> these for you (which is nice as mdraid10 with odd disk count >>> can be a tricky calculation). > > Ambiguous more than tricky, and not very useful, except the chunk > size. > >>>> Will my files be safe even on sudden power loss? > > The answer is NO, if you mean "absolutely safe". But see the > discussion at the end. > >>> [ ... ] Application write behavior does play a role. > > Indeed, see the discussion at the end and ways to mitigate. > >>> UPS with shutdown scripts, and persistent write cache prevent >>> this problem. [ ... ] > > There is always the problem of system crashes that don't depend > on power.... > >>>> Is barrier=1 enough? Do i need to disable the write cache? >>>> with: hdparm -W0 /dev/sdb /dev/sdc /dev/sdd > >>> Disabling drive write caches does decrease the likelihood of >>> data loss. > >>>> I tried it but performance is horrendous. > >>> And this is why you should leave them enabled and use >>> barriers. Better yet, use a RAID card with BBWC and disable >>> the drive caches. > >> Budget does not allow for RAID card with BBWC > > You'd be surprised by how cheap you can get one. But many HW host > adapters with builtin cache have bad performance or horrid bugs, > so you'd have to be careful. could you please suggest a hardware raid card with BBU that's cheap? > > In any case that's not the major problem you have. > >>>> Am I better of with ext4? Data safety/integrity is the >>>> priority and optimization affecting it is not acceptable. > > XFS is the filesystem of the future ;-). I would choose it over > 'ext4' in every plausible case. > >> nightly backups will be stored on an external USB disk > > USB is an unreliable, buggy transport, and slow, eSATA is > enormously better and faster. > >> is xfs going to be prone to more data loss in case the >> non-redundant power supply goes out? > > That's the wrong question entirely. Data loss can happen for many > other reasons, and XFS is probably one of the safest designs, if > properly used and configured. The problems are elsewhere. Can you please elaborate how xfs can be properly used and configured? > >> I just updated the kernel to 3.0.0-16. Did they take out >> barrier support in mdraid? or was the implementation replaced >> with FUA? Is there a definitive test to determine if the off >> the shelf consumer sata drives honor barrier or cache flush >> requests? > > Usually they do, but that's the least of your worries. Anyhow a > test that occurs to me is to write a know pattern to a file, > let's say 1GiB, then 'fsync', and as soon as 'fsync' completes, > power off. Then check whether the whole 1GiB is the known pattern. > >> I think I'd like to go with device cache turned ON and barrier >> enabled. > > That's how it is supposed to work. > > As to general safety issues, there seem to be some misunderstanding, > and I'll try to be more explicit than "lob the grenade" notion. > > It matters a great deal what "safety" means in your mind and that > of your users. As a previous comment pointed out, that usually > involves backups, that is data that has already been stored. > > But your insistence on power off and disk caches etc. seems to > indicate that "safety" in your mind means "when I click the > 'Save' button it is really saved and not partially". > let me define safety as needed by the usecase: fileA is a 2MB open office document file already existing on the file system. userA opens fileA locally, modifies a lot of lines and attempts to save it. as the saving operation is proceeding, the PSU goes haywire and power is cut abruptly. When the system is turned on, i expect some sort of recovery process to bring the filesystem to a consistent state. I expect fileA should be as it was before the save operation and should not be corrupted in anyway. Am I asking/expecting too much? > As to that there quite a lot of qualifiers: > > * Most users don't understand that even in the best scenario a > file is really saved not when they *click* the 'Save' button, > but when they get the "Saved!" message. In between anything > can happen. Also, work in progress (not yet saved explicitly) > is fair game. > > * "Really saved" is an *application* concern first and foremost. > The application *must* say (via 'fsync') that it wants the > data really saved. Unfortunately most applications don't do > that because "really saved" is a very expensive operation, and > usually sytems don't crash, so the application writer looks > like a genius if he has an "optimistic" attitude. If you do a > web search look for various O_PONIES discussions. Some intros: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/351422/ > http://lwn.net/Articles/322823/ > > * XFS (and to a point 'ext4') is designed for applications that > work correctly and issue 'fsync' appropriately, and if they do > it is very safe, because it tries hard to ensure that either > 'fsync' means "really saved" or you know that it does not. XFS > takes advantage of the assumption that applications do the > right thing to do various latency-based optimizations between > calls to 'fsync'. > > * Unfortunately most GUI applications don't do the right thing, > but fortunately you can compensate for that. The key here is > to make sure that the flusher's parameter are set for rather > more frequent flushing than the default, which is equivalent > to issuing 'fsync' systemwide fairly frequently. Ideally set > 'vm/dirty_bytes' to something like 1-3 seconds of IO transfer > rate (and in reversal on some of my previous advice leave > 'vm/dirty_background_bytes' to something quite large unless > you *really* want safety), and to shorten significantly > 'vm/dirty_expire_centisecs', 'vm/dirty_writeback_centisecs'. > This defeats some XFS optimizations, but that's inevitable. > > * In any case you are using NFS/Samba, and that opens a much > bigger set of issues, because caching happens on the clients > too: http://www.sabi.co.uk/0707jul.html#070701b > > Then Von Neuman help you if your users or you decide to store lots > of messages in MH/Maildir style mailstores, or VM images on > "growable" virtual disks. what's wrong with VM images on "growable" virtual disks. are you saying not to rely on lvm2 volumes? > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
