xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: I/O hang, possibly XFS, possibly general

To: Paul Anderson <pha@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: I/O hang, possibly XFS, possibly general
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 13:15:37 +1000
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <BANLkTi=FjSzSZJXGofVjtiUe2ZNvki2R-Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <BANLkTim_BCiKeqi5gY_gXAcmg7JgrgJCxQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110603004247.GA28043@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110603013948.GX561@dastard> <BANLkTi=FjSzSZJXGofVjtiUe2ZNvki2R-Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:59:02AM -0400, Paul Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:42:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:42:46AM -0400, Paul Anderson wrote:
> >> > This morning, I had a symptom of a I/O throughput problem in which
> >> > dirty pages appeared to be taking a long time to write to disk.
> >> >
> >> > The system is a large x64 192GiB dell 810 server running 2.6.38.5 from
> >> > kernel.org - the basic workload was data intensive - concurrent large
> >> > NFS (with high metadata/low filesize), rsync/lftp (with low
> >> > metadata/high file size) all working in a 200TiB XFS volume on a
> >> > software MD raid0 on top of 7 software MD raid6, each w/18 drives.  I
> >> > had mounted the filesystem with inode64,largeio,logbufs=8,noatime.
> >>
> >> A few comments on the setup before trying to analze what's going on in
> >> detail.  I'd absolutely recommend an external log device for this setup,
> >> that is buy another two fast but small disks, or take two existing ones
> >> and use a RAID 1 for the external log device.  This will speed up
> >> anything log intensive, which both NFS, and resync workloads are lot.
> >>
> >> Second thing if you can split the workloads into multiple volumes if you
> >> have two such different workloads, so thay they don't interfear with
> >> each other.
> >>
> >> Second a RAID0 on top of RAID6 volumes sounds like a pretty worst case
> >> for almost any type of I/O.  You end up doing even relatively small I/O
> >> to all of the disks in the worst case.  I think you'd be much better
> >> off with a simple linear concatenation of the RAID6 devices, even if you
> >> can split them into multiple filesystems
> >>
> >> > The specific symptom was that 'sync' hung, a dpkg command hung
> >> > (presumably trying to issue fsync), and experimenting with "killall
> >> > -STOP" or "kill -STOP" of the workload jobs didn't let the system
> >> > drain I/O enough to finish the sync.  I probably did not wait long
> >> > enough, however.
> >>
> >> It really sounds like you're simply killloing the MD setup with a
> >> log of log I/O that does to all the devices.
> >
> > And this is one of the reasons why I originally suggested that
> > storage at this scale really should be using hardware RAID with
> > large amounts of BBWC to isolate the backend from such problematic
> > IO patterns.
> 
> > Dave Chinner
> > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> 
> Good HW RAID cards are on order - seems to be backordered at least a
> few weeks now at CDW.  Got the batteries immediately.
> 
> That will give more options for test and deployment.
> 
> Not sure what I can do about the log - man page says xfs_growfs
> doesn't implement log moving.  I can rebuild the filesystems, but for
> the one mentioned in this theread, this will take a long time.

Once you have BBWC, the log IO gets aggregated into stripe width
writes to the back end (because it is always sequential IO), so it's
generally not a significant problem for HW RAID subsystems.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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