[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs hardware RAID alignment over linear lvm

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs hardware RAID alignment over linear lvm
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 20:10:51 -0500
Cc: Stewart Webb <stew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130926215806.GQ26872@dastard>
References: <CAE3v2EaODFud_S_BzuSjtwGwuNBXhvL0RiPB1P5QroF45Obwbw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <52435327.9080607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <2F959FD9-EF28-4495-9D0B-59B93D89C820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130925215713.GH26872@dastard> <CAE3v2EYVnXiWq1n8AJ0+Y2eifZyhV08S4uLwf6B6mXXWAzBzRA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5243FCD6.4000701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130926215806.GQ26872@dastard>
Reply-to: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
On 9/26/2013 4:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 04:22:30AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 9/26/2013 3:55 AM, Stewart Webb wrote:
>>> Thanks for all this info Stan and Dave,
>>>> "Stripe size" is a synonym of XFS sw, which is su * #disks.  This is the
>>>> amount of data written across the full RAID stripe (excluding parity).
>>> The reason I stated Stripe size is because in this instance, I have 3ware
>>> RAID controllers, which refer to
>>> this value as "Stripe" in their tw_cli software (god bless manufacturers
>>> renaming everything)
>>> I do, however, have a follow-on question:
>>> On other systems, I have similar hardware:
>>> 3x Raid Controllers
>>> 1 of them has 10 disks as RAID 6 that I would like to add to a logical
>>> volume
>>> 2 of them have 12 disks as a RAID 6 that I would like to add to the same
>>> logical volume
>>> All have the same "Stripe" or "Strip Size" of 512 KB
>>> So if I where going to make 3 seperate xfs volumes, I would do the
>>> following:
>>> mkfs.xfs -d su=512k sw=8 /dev/sda
>>> mkfs.xfs -d su=512k sw=10 /dev/sdb
>>> mkfs.xfs -d su=512k sw=10 /dev/sdc
>>> I assume, If I where going to bring them all into 1 logical volume, it
>>> would be best placed to have the sw value set
>>> to a value that is divisible by both 8 and 10 - in this case 2?
>> No.  In this case you do NOT stripe align XFS to the storage, because
>> it's impossible--the RAID stripes are dissimilar.  In this case you use
>> the default 4KB write out, as if this is a single disk drive.
>> As Dave stated, if you format a concatenated device with XFS and you
>> desire to align XFS, then all constituent arrays must have the same
>> geometry.
>> Two things to be aware of here:
>> 1.  With a decent hardware write caching RAID controller, having XFS
>> alined to the RAID geometry is a small optimization WRT overall write
>> performance, because the controller is going to be doing the optimizing
>> of final writeback to the drives.
>> 2. Alignment does not affect read performance.
> Ah, but it does...
>> 3.  XFS only performs aligned writes during allocation.
> Right, and it does so not only to improve write performance, but to
> also maximise sequential read performance of the data that is
> written, especially when multiple files are being read
> simultaneously and IO latency is important to keep low (e.g.
> realtime video ingest and playout).

Absolutely correct, as Dave always is.  As my workloads are mostly
random, as are those of others I consult in other fora, I sometimes
forget the [multi]streaming case.  Which is not good, as many folks
choose XFS specifically for [multi]streaming workloads.  My remarks to
this audience should always reflect that.  Apologies for my oversight on
this occasion.

>> What really makes a difference as to whether alignment will be of
>> benefit to you, and how often, is your workload.  So at this point, you
>> need to describe the primary workload(s) of your systems we're discussing.
> Yup, my thoughts exactly...
> Cheers,
> Dave.


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