xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS internal error (memory corruption)

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS internal error (memory corruption)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 03:07:56 -0400
Cc: T?r?k Edwin <edwintorok@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20110706040403.GW1026@dastard>
References: <4E12A927.9020102@xxxxxxxxx> <20110705130932.GF1026@dastard> <4E1313C1.6020309@xxxxxxxxx> <20110706040403.GW1026@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 02:04:03PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Although is there supposed to be a performance benefit from having
> > a separate log disk with XFS?
> 
> There used to be. Now everyone just uses delayed logging, which is
> far faster and more scalable that even using an external log.

Even with delayed logging external logs are a huge benefit if you
hit the log hard, e.g. for fsync intensive workloads.  E.g. when
using fs_mark in fsync mode it gives speedups over 100% for the
setups I've tested.  You'll see similar speedups for NFS server
loads that are log force heavy as well.

> 
> > IIRC it has a disadvantage that you can't use barriers properly.
> 
> That mostly works now (recent kernels), but you take a hit in
> journal IO waiting synchronously for the data device caches to be
> flushed before writing to the log device.

For metadata-heavy workloads where an external log benefits you most
you generally just want to disable the volatile write cache anyway.

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