xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance problem - reads slower than writes

To: Brian Candler <B.Candler@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Performance problem - reads slower than writes
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:03:04 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120203184723.GA2261@xxxxxxxx>
References: <20120130220019.GA45782@xxxxxxxx> <20120131020508.GF9090@dastard> <20120131103126.GA46170@xxxxxxxx> <20120131141604.GB46571@xxxxxxxx> <20120131202526.GJ9090@dastard> <20120203184723.GA2261@xxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 06:47:23PM +0000, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:25:26AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > The only thing changing the inode size will have affected is the
> > directory structure - maybe your directories are small enough to fit
> > in line, or the inode is large enough to keep it in extent format
> > rather than a full btree. In either case, though, the directory
> > lookup will require less IO.
> 
> I've done a whole bunch of testing, which I won't describe in detail unless
> you're interested, but I've finally found out what's causing the sudden
> change in performance.
> 
> With defaults, the files in one directory are spread all over the
> filesystem.  But with -i size=1024, the files in a directory are stored
> adjacent to each other. Hence reading all the files in one directory
> requires far less seeking across the disk, and runs about 3 times faster.

Not sure if you mentioned it somewhere before, but:

 a) how large is the filesystem?
 b) do use the inode64 mount option
 c) can you see the same good behaviour when using inode64 and small
    inodes (not that inode64 can NOT be set using remount)

> 
> Here is the filesystem on a disk formatted with defaults:
> 
> root@storage1:~# find /data/sdc | head -20 | xargs xfs_bmap 
> /data/sdc: no extents
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384:
>       0: [0..31]: 567088..567119
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000:
>       0: [0..7]: 567120..567127
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/0icoeTRPHKX0000000000:
>       0: [0..1015]: 4411196808..4411197823
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/Q0000000001:
>       0: [0..1543]: 1466262056..1466263599
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/JFXQyeq6diG0000000002:
>       0: [0..1295]: 2936342144..2936343439
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/TK7ciXkkj0000000003:
>       0: [0..1519]: 4411197824..4411199343
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/0000000004:
>       0: [0..1207]: 1466263600..1466264807
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/acJKZWAwEnu0000000005:
>       0: [0..1223]: 2936343440..2936344663
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/9wIgxPKeI4B0000000006:
>       0: [0..1319]: 4411199344..4411200663
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/C6QLFdND0000000007:
>       0: [0..1111]: 1466264808..1466265919
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/6xc1Wydh0000000008:
>       0: [0..1223]: 2936344664..2936345887
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/0000000009:
>       0: [0..1167]: 4411200664..4411201831
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/HdlN0000000000a:
>       0: [0..1535]: 1466265920..1466267455
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/52IabyC5pvis000000000b:
>       0: [0..1287]: 2936345888..2936347175
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/LvDhxcdLf000000000c:
>       0: [0..1583]: 4411201832..4411203415
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/08P3JAR000000000d:
>       0: [0..1255]: 1466267456..1466268711
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/000000000e:
>       0: [0..1095]: 2936347176..2936348271
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/s0gtPGPecXu000000000f:
>       0: [0..1319]: 4411203416..4411204735
> /data/sdc/Bonnie.26384/00000/HFLOcN0000000010:
>       0: [0..1503]: 1466268712..1466270215
> 
> And here is the filesystem created with -i size=1024:
> 
> root@storage1:~# find /data/sdb | head -20 | xargs xfs_bmap 
> /data/sdb: no extents
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384:
>       0: [0..7]: 243752..243759
>       1: [8..15]: 5526920..5526927
>       2: [16..23]: 7053272..7053279
>       3: [24..31]: 24223832..24223839
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000:
>       0: [0..7]: 1465133488..1465133495
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/0icoeTRPHKX0000000000:
>       0: [0..1015]: 1465134032..1465135047
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/Q0000000001:
>       0: [0..1543]: 1465135048..1465136591
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/JFXQyeq6diG0000000002:
>       0: [0..1295]: 1465136592..1465137887
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/TK7ciXkkj0000000003:
>       0: [0..1519]: 1465137888..1465139407
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/0000000004:
>       0: [0..1207]: 1465139408..1465140615
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/acJKZWAwEnu0000000005:
>       0: [0..1223]: 1465140616..1465141839
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/9wIgxPKeI4B0000000006:
>       0: [0..1319]: 1465141840..1465143159
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/C6QLFdND0000000007:
>       0: [0..1111]: 1465143160..1465144271
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/6xc1Wydh0000000008:
>       0: [0..1223]: 1465144272..1465145495
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/0000000009:
>       0: [0..1167]: 1465145496..1465146663
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/HdlN0000000000a:
>       0: [0..1535]: 1465146664..1465148199
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/52IabyC5pvis000000000b:
>       0: [0..1287]: 1465148200..1465149487
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/LvDhxcdLf000000000c:
>       0: [0..1583]: 1465149488..1465151071
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/08P3JAR000000000d:
>       0: [0..1255]: 1465151072..1465152327
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/000000000e:
>       0: [0..1095]: 1465152464..1465153559
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/s0gtPGPecXu000000000f:
>       0: [0..1319]: 1465153560..1465154879
> /data/sdb/Bonnie.26384/00000/HFLOcN0000000010:
>       0: [0..1503]: 1465154880..1465156383
> 
> All the files in one directory are close to that directory; when you get to
> another directory the block offset jumps.
> 
> This is a highly desirable property when you want to copy all the files: for
> example, using this filesystem I can tar it up and untar it onto another
> filesystem at 73MB/s, as compared to about 25MB/sec on a default filesystem.
> 
> So now my questions now are:
> 
> (1) Is this a fluke? What is it about -i size=1024 which causes this to
> happen?
> 
> (2) What is the intended behaviour for XFS: that files should be close to
> their parent directory or spread across allocation groups?
> 
> I did some additional tests:
> 
> * -i size=512
> Files spread around
> 
> * -n size=16384
> Files spread around
> 
> * -i size=1024 -n size=16384
> Files local to directory
> 
> * -i size=2048
> Files local to directory
> 
> Any clues gratefully received. This usage pattern (dumping in a large
> library of files, and then processing all those files sequentially) is an
> important one for the system I'm working on.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Brian.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
---end quoted text---

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