[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 30 TB RAID6 + XFS slow write performance

To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 30 TB RAID6 + XFS slow write performance
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 09:10:40 +1000
Cc: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, John Bokma <contact@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4E29BBDA.3000603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4E24907F.6020903@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201107210820.01019@xxxxxx> <20110721064838.GA13963@dastard> <201107220810.01889@xxxxxx> <4E29BBDA.3000603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 01:05:14PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 1:10 AM, Michael Monnerie wrote:
> > Yes, I just wanted to know about the corner cases, and how XFS behaves. 
> > Actually, we're changing over to using NetApps, and with their WAFL 
> > anyway I should drop all su/sw usage and just use 4KB blocks.
> I've never used a NetApp filer myself.  However, that said, I would
> assume that WAFL is only in play for NFS/CIFS transactions since WAFL is
> itself a filesystem.

Netapp's website is busted, so here's a cached link:


"The point is that WAFL is the part of the code that provides the
'read or write from-disk' mechanisms to both NFS and CIFS and SAN.
The semantics of a how the blocks are accessed are provided by
higher level code not by WAFL, which means WAFL is not a file

If you can be bothered trolling for that entire series of blog posts
in the google cache, it's probably a good idea so you can get a
basic understanding of what WAFL actually is.

> When exposing LUNs from the same filer to FC and iSCSI hosts I would
> assume the filer acts just as any other SAN controller would.

It has it's own quirks, just like any other FC attached RAID array...

> In this case I would think you'd probably still want to align your
> XFS filesystem to the underlying RAID stripe from which the LUN
> was carved.

Which actually matters very little when WAFL between the FS and the
disk because WAFL uses copy-on-write and stages all it's writes
through NVRAM and so you've got no idea what the alignment of any
given address in the filesystem maps to, anyway.


Dave Chinner

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