[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

To: "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:23:33 -0500
Cc: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Spelic <spelic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, device-mapper development <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20120619141933.GC10637@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4FDF9EBE.2030809@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1206191601290.21961@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120619141933.GC10637@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
On 6/19/12 9:19 AM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:09:48PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
>> With thin provisioning you'll get totally different file system
>> layout than on fully provisioned disk as you push more and more
>> writes to your drive. This unfortunately has great impact on
>> performance since file systems usually have a lot of optimization on
>> where to put data/metadata on the drive and how to read them.
>> However in case of thinly provisioned storage those optimization
>> would not help. And yes, you just have to expect lower performance
>> with dm-thin from the file system on top of it. It is not and it
>> will never be ideal solution for workloads where you expect the best
>> performance.
> One of the things which would be nice to be able to easily set up is a
> configuration where we get the benefits of thin provisioning with
> respect to snapshost, but where the underlying block device used by
> the file system is contiguous.  That is, it would be really useful to
> *not* use thin provisioning for the underlying file system, but to use
> thin provisioned snapshots.  That way we only pay the thinp
> performance penalty for the snapshots, and not for normal file system
> operations.  This is something that would be very useful both for ext4
> and xfs.

I agree, and have asked for exactly the same thing... though I have no
idea how hard it is to disentangle allocation-aware snapshots from thing
provisioned storage.


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