On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:58:45PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 04/07/14 10:39, Brian Foster wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >This is v2 of the speculative preallocation FAQ bits. The initial > >proposal was here: > > > >http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-03/msg00316.html > > > >This version includes some updates based on review from arekm and > >dchinner. Most notably, the content has been broken down into a few more > >questions. Unless there are further major changes required, I'll plan to > >post something along these lines to the wiki when my account is > >approved. Thanks for the feedback! > > > >Brian > > > >--- > > > >Q: Why do files on XFS use more data blocks than expected? > > > >A: > > > >The XFS speculative preallocation algorithm allocates extra blocks > >beyond end of file (EOF) to minimise file fragmentation during buffered > ^^^ beyond here and then later adopt post-EOF phrasing. > I think you're suggesting a broader terminology change, but I'm not quite following. Could you be specific about what "later" bits should change? What phrasing in particular..? > ... > > >See the FAQ entry on speculative preallocation for details. > > > >Q: What is speculative preallocation? > > > >A: > > > >XFS speculatively preallocates post-EOF blocks on file extending writes > >in anticipation of future extending writes. The size of a preallocation > >is dynamic and depends on the runtime state of the file and fs. > >Generally speaking, preallocation is disabled for very small files and > vague what is very small? ^^^ > ... I originally pointed out 64k, but that and other heuristic details that are subject to change were purged in v2. I'm personally not against including something that indicates the default and the notion that it's subject to change. I don't feel too strongly about it either way. Thoughts appreciated. > > > >Q: Is speculative preallocation permanent? > > > >A: > > > >Although speculative preallocation can lead to reports of excess space > >usage, the preallocated space is not permanent unless explicitly made so > >via fallocate or a similar interface. Preallocated space can also be > >encoded permanently in situations where file size is extended beyond a > >range of post-EOF blocks (i.e., via truncate). Otherwise, preallocated > >blocks are reclaimed on file close, inode reclaim, unmount or in the > >background once file write activity subsides. > > Switch order? > > Normally, preallocated > blocks are reclaimed on file close, inode reclaim, unmount or in the > background once file write activity subsides. They can be explictly > made permanent . > Thoughts on the following? "Preallocated blocks are normally reclaimed on file close, inode reclaim, unmount or in the background once file write activity subsides. They can be explicitly made permanent via fallocate or a similar interface. They can be implicitly made permanent in situations where file size is extended beyond a range of post-EOF blocks (i.e., via an extending truncate)." > > > >Q: My workload has known characteristics - can I tune speculative > >preallocation to an optimal fixed size? > > > >A: > > > >The 'allocsize=' mount option configures the XFS block allocation > >algorithm to use a fixed allocation size. Speculative preallocation is > >not dynamically resized when the allocsize mount option is set and thus > >the potential for fragmentation is increased. XFS historically set > > sets the > > >allocsize to 64k by default. > > > > > Q: Can I disable S-P-A ? > A: No..? ;) Are you proposing this with the similar intent to the previous Q (i.e., "what's the alternative to the default behavior?"), or with the notion that Dave pointed out how technically preallocation is not really "off?" Or something else? If the former, we could modify the question: "My workload has known characteristics - can I disable speculative preallocation or tune it to an optimal fixed size?" Or something along those lines. Would anybody object to also pointing out that 'allocsize=4k' (or allocsize=<blocksize>?) could be considered "speculative preallocation == off" from the user's perspective? Thanks for the feedback. Brian > -Mark. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
