xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance problem with multiple parallel rm -rf's

To: Jens Rosenboom <j.rosenboom@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Performance problem with multiple parallel rm -rf's
From: Sujit K M <sjt.kar@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:11:50 +0530
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=yLXpUkKwjvF+I3fwf1LtNNzQ48upjvJOkzbcfTk60RM=; b=VneNXxoha9wvwVAPrwdHUtEBGyAAxAqlZCd6YSWGnQ2NfYx8JnR/1XJVI0MF2ntLOU 37cCf6NolSxdFGwnIr0sTzZxiVhyZJ7FaMhooMivw8wh82h09iernFwSmWT1owLMBLZ8 APWkl3iaMwbRVaREnoQBseHbQuytJy0uTVuQQ=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=gynS8ExSuOWpNx+/zKtlcDCHXv00Jz9RkBE8jrWXup/VGJb++wn/dDwfOulSLIC16T UXqHVPKYAX22Zfjj7A5Qc0AKaj3mqKh3E6w57KXHmQzf8GM6wV0cdJMzBH9yWniXu4Cz TfyGLgVWmxEArXTp8lIIskMBG31kLiYvBlcK0=
In-reply-to: <4B163B20.6030808@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4B163B20.6030808@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
This I think is not dependent on XFS. Most File systems tend to give bad
performance when multiple rm -rf is being run. I think the Linux(XFS or any) are
object based and tend to lock on the filesystem, but donot have any
exact knowledge
of the Level at which it is being held.

Thanks,
Sujit

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Jens Rosenboom <j.rosenboom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On a large 13TB XFS volume that is being used for backups, I am seeing bad
> performance if multiple "rm -rf" processes are running in parallel. The
> backups are being done with rsnapshot and the first operation it does is
> removing the oldest snapshot. A single rsnapshot does this in reasonable
> time, but if four jobs are started at the same time, all their rm processes
> run for hours without making much progress.
>
> This seems to be related to the planned optimizations in
>
> http://xfs.org/index.php/Improving_Metadata_Performance_By_Reducing_Journal_Overhead
>
> Are there any other tuning options I might try? I'm already using
> "noatime,nodiratime,nobarrier,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k" as mount options and
> did enable lazy_counters for the fs.
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>