On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 10:39:18PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 2/2/2014 3:30 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 11:09:11AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Feb 1, 2014, at 2:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On 2/1/2014 2:55 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 1, 2014, at 11:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner
> >>>> <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> When nesting stripes, the chunk size of the outer stripe is
> >>> -always- equal to the stripe width of each inner striped array,
> >>> as I clearly demonstrated earlier:
> >> Except when it's hardware raid6, and software raid0, and the user
> >> doesn't know they need to specify the chunk size in this manner.
> >> And instead they use the mdadm default. What you're saying makes
> >> complete sense, but I don't think this is widespread knowledge or
> >> well documented anywhere that regular end users would know this by
> >> and large.
> > And that is why this is a perfect example of what I'd like to see
> > people writing documentation for.
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-12/msg00588.html
> > This is not the first time we've had this nested RAID discussion,
> > nor will it be the last. However, being able to point ot a web page
> > or or documentation makes it a whole lot easier.....
> > Stan - any chance you might be able to spare an hour a week to write
> > something about optimal RAID storage configuration for XFS?
> I could do more, probably rather quickly. What kind of scope, format,
> style? Should this be structured as reference manual style
> documentation, FAQ, blog?? I'm leaning more towards reference style.
Agreed - reference style is probably best. As for format style, I'm
tending towards a simple, text editor friendly markup like asciidoc.
>From there we can use it to generate PDFs, wiki documentation, etc
and so make it available in whatever format is convenient.
(Oh, wow, 'apt-get install asciidoc' wants to pull in about 1.1GB of
> How about starting with a lead-in explaining why the workload should
> always drive storage architecture. Then I'll describe the various
> standard and nested RAID levels, concatenations, etc and some
> dis/advantages of each. Finally I'll give examples of a few common and
> a high end workloads, one or more storage architectures suitable for
> each and why, and how XFS should be configured optimally for each
> workload and stack combination WRT geometry, AGs, etc.
That sounds like a fine plan.
The only thing I can think of that is obviously missing from this is
the process of problem diagnosis. e.g. what to do when something
goes wrong. The most common the mistake we see is trying to repair
the filesystem when th storage is still broken and making a bigger
mess. Having something that describes what to look for (e.g. raid
reconstruction getting disks out of order) and how to recover from
problems with as little risk and data loss as possible would be
> I could also touch on elevator selection and other common kernel
> tweaks often needed with XFS.
I suspect you'll need to deal with elevators and IO schedulers and
the impact of BBWC on reordering and merging early on in the storage
architecture discussion. ;)
As for kernel tweaks outside the storage stack, i wouldn't bother
right now - we can always add it later it it's appropriate.
> I could provide a workload example with each RAID level/storage
> architecture in lieu of the separate workload section. Many readers
> would probably like to see it presented in that manner as they often
> start at the wrong end of the tunnel. However, that would be
> antithetical to the assertion that the workload drives the stack design,
> which is a concept we want to reinforce as often as possible I think.
> So I think the former 3 section layout is better.
Rearranging text is much easier than writing it in the first place,
so I think we can worry about that once the document starts to take
> I should be able to knock most of this out fairly quickly, but I'll need
> help on some of it. For example I don't have any first hand experience
> with large high end workloads. I could make up a plausible theoretical
> example but I'd rather have as many real-world workloads as possible.
> What I have in mind for workload examples is something like the
> following. It would be great if list members who have one the workloads
> below would contribute their details and pointers, any secret sauce,
> etc. Thus when we refer someone to this document they know they're
> reading of an actual real world production configuration. Though I
> don't plan to name sites, people, etc, just the technical configurations.
1. General purpose (i.e. unspecialised) configuration that should be
good for most users.
> 1. Small file, highly parallel, random IO
> -- mail queue, maildir mailbox storage
> -- HPC, filesystem as a database
> -- ??
The hot topic of the moment that fits into this category is object
stores for distributed storage. i.e. gluster and ceph running
openstack storage layers like swift to store large numbers of
pictures of cats.
> 2. Virtual machine consolidation w/mixed guest workload
There's a whole lot of stuff here that is dependent on exactly how
the VM infrastructure is set up, so this might be difficult to
simplify enough to be useful.
> 3. Large scale database
> -- transactional
> -- warehouse, data mining
They are actually two very different workloads. Data mining is
really starting to move towards distributed databases that
specialise in high bandwidth sequential IO so I'm not sure that it
really is any different these days to a traditional HPC
application in terms of IO...
> 4. High bandwidth parallel streaming
> -- video ingestion/playback
> -- satellite data capture
> -- other HPC ??
Large scale data archiving (i.e. write-once workloads), pretty much
> 5. Large scale NFS server, mixed client workload
I'd just say large scale NFS server, because - apart from modifying
the structure to suit NFS access patterns - the underly config
is still going to be driven by the dominant workloads.
storage config is still
> Lemme know if this is ok or if you'd like it to take a different
> direction, if you have better or additional example workload classes,
> etc. If mostly ok, I'll get started on the first 2 sections and fill in
> the 3rd as people submit examples.
It sounds good to me - I think that the first 2 sections are the
core of the work - it's the theory that is in our heads (i.e. the
black magic) that is simply not documented in a way that people can