[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_fsr, sunit, and swidth

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_fsr, sunit, and swidth
From: Dave Hall <kdhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:25:55 -0400
Cc: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130331012231.GJ6369@dastard>
References: <5141C1FC.4060209@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5141C8C1.2080903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5141E5CF.10101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5142AE40.6040408@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130315114538.GF6369@dastard> <5143F94C.1020708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130316072126.GG6369@dastard> <515082C3.2000006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <515361B5.8050603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5155F2B2.1010308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130331012231.GJ6369@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20121215 Icedove/3.0.11
So, assuming entropy has reached critical mass and that there is no easy fix for this physical file system, what would happen if I replicated this data to a new disk array? When I say 'replicate', I'm not talking about xfs_dump. I'm talking about running a series of cp -al/rsync operations (or maybe rsync with --link-dest) that will precisely reproduce the linked data on my current array. All of the inodes would be re-allocated. There wouldn't be any (or at least not many) deletes.

I am hoping that if I do this the inode fragmentation will be significantly reduced on the target as compared to the source. Of course over time it may re-fragment, but with two arrays I can always wipe one and reload it.


Dave Hall
Binghamton University
607-760-2328 (Cell)
607-777-4641 (Office)

On 03/30/2013 09:22 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 03:59:46PM -0400, Dave Hall wrote:
Dave, Stan,

Here is the link for perf top -U:  http://pastebin.com/JYLXYWki.
The ag report is at http://pastebin.com/VzziSa4L.  Interestingly,
the backups ran fast a couple times this week.  Once under 9 hours.
Today it looks like it's running long again.
     12.38%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_get_rec
     11.65%  [xfs]     [k] _xfs_buf_find
     11.29%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_increment
      7.88%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_inobt_get_rec
      5.40%  [kernel]  [k] intel_idle
      4.13%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_get_block
      4.09%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_dialloc
      3.21%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_readahead
      2.00%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_rec_offset
      1.50%  [xfs]     [k] xfs_btree_rec_addr

Inode allocation searches, looking for an inode near to the parent

Whatthis indicates is that you have lots of sparsely allocated inode
chunks on disk. i.e. each 64 indoe chunk has some free inodes in it,
and some used inodes. This is Likely due to random removal of inodes
as you delete old backups and link counts drop to zero. Because we
only index inodes on "allocated chunks", finding a chunk that has a
free inode can be like finding a needle in a haystack. There are
heuristics used to stop searches from consuming too much CPU, but it
still can be quite slow when you repeatedly hit those paths....

I don't have an answer that will magically speed things up for
you right now...



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