On 10/14/15 1:29 PM, Cédric Lemarchand wrote: > Well .. it seems I missed the most important part of the FAQ, thank > for pointing it. As you stated, playing with xfs_bmap shows that the > 13TB file is fragmented a lot, xfs_fsr is now working on it. how much was "a lot?" a 13TB file can have "a lot" of *very* large extents. > Any hints about sector size ? Regarding the workload, my point would > be that use 4k could not hurts here. There's no real reason to change from the defaults mkfs.xfs detects and uses for sector size. Certainly sector size has nothing at all to do with fragmentation. -Eric > Thanks, > > Cédric > > -- > Cédric Lemarchand > IT Infrastructure Manager > iXBlue > 34 rue de la Croix de Fer > 78100 St Germain en Laye > France > Tel. +33 1 30 08 88 88 > Mob. +33 6 37 23 40 93 > Fax +33 1 30 08 88 00 > www.ixblue.com <http://www.ixblue.com> > >> On 14 Oct 2015, at 00:04, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 10/13/15 4:54 PM, Cédric Lemarchand wrote: >>> I think I actually have very bad fragmentation values, which >>> unfortunately involve performances drop by an order of magnitude of >>> 3x/4x. A defrag is actually running, but it's really really slow, to the >>> point that I will need to constantly defrag the partition, which is not >>> optimal. There are approximatively 500Go written sequentially every day, >>> and almost 10/12T random writes every week due to backup files rotations. >> >> Does anything besides the xfs_db "frag" command make you think that >> fragmentation is a problem? See below... >> >>> The partition has been formated with default options, over LVM (one >>> VG/one LV). >>> >>> Here are somes questions : >>> >>> - is there mkfs.xfs or mounting options that could reduce the >>> fragmentation over the time ? >>> - the backup software writes use blocks size of ~4MB, as the previous >>> question, any options to optimize differents layers (LVM & XFS) ? The >>> underlaying FS could handle 1MB block size, should I set this value for >>> XFS too ? do I need to play with "su" and "sw" as stated in the FAQ ? >>> >>> I admit that there are so many options that I am a bit lost. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Cédric >>> >>> -- >>> Some informations : VM running Debian Jessie, underlaying storage is >>> software raid (ZFS). >>> >>> >>> df -k >>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on >>> /dev/mapper/VG2-LV1 53685000192 40921853928 12763146264 77% /vrepo1 >>> >>> xfs_db -r /dev/VG2/LV1 -c frag >>> actual 4222, ideal 137, fragmentation factor 96.76% >> >> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_The_xfs_db_.22frag.22_command_says_I.27m_over_50.25._Is_that_bad.3F >> >> So in 137 files, you have 4222 extents, or an average of >> about 30 extents per file. >> >> Or put another way, you have 39026 gigabytes used, in >> 4222 extents, for an average of 9 gigabytes per extent. >> >> Those don't sound like problematic numbers. >> >> xfs_bmap on an individual file will show you its mapping. >> But for files of several hundred gigs, having several >> very large extents really is not a problem. >> >> I think the xfs_db frag command may be misleading you about >> where the problem lies. >> >> Of course it's possible that all but one of your files is >> well laid out, and that last file is horribly, horribly >> fragmented. But the top-level numbers don't tell us whether >> that might be the case. >> >> -Eric >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xfs mailing list >> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
