xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: inode64 directory placement determinism

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: inode64 directory placement determinism
From: stan hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:14:44 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <ed7598d015f5a1d3576e6b03f3ef3116@localhost>
References: <e1eeba7b0fb97c63e41f40ed9ac162d7@localhost> <20140818070153.GL20518@dastard> <bc34a576d2b3e8c431633574deaa37cc@localhost> <20140818224853.GD26465@dastard> <ed7598d015f5a1d3576e6b03f3ef3116@localhost>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.7.0

On 08/18/2014 07:02 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:48:53 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:16:12AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:01:53 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:29:21PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Say I have a single 4TB disk in an md linear device.  The md device
has
a
filesystem on it formatted with defaults.  It has 4 AGs, 0-3.  I
have
created 4 directories.  Each should reside in a different AG, the
first
in
AG0.  Now I expand the linear device with an identical 4TB disk and
execute
xfs_growfs.  I now have 4 more AGs, 4-7.  I create 4 more
directories.

Will these 4 new dirs be created sequentially in AGs 4-7, or in the
first
4 AGs?  Is this deterministic, or is there any chance involved?  On
the

Deterministic, assuming single threaded *file-system-wide* directory
creation. Completely unpredictable under concurrent directory
creations.  See xfs_ialloc_ag_select/xfs_ialloc_next_ag.

Note that the rotor used to select the next AG is set to
zero at mount.

i.e. single threaded behaviour at agcount = 4:

dir number      rotor value       destination AG
  1               0                     0
  2               1                     1
  3               2                     2
  4               3                     3
  5               0                     0
  6               1                     1
....

So, if you do what you suggest, and grow *after* the first 4 dirs
are created, the above is what you'll get because the rotor goes
back to zero on the fourth directory create. Now, with changing from
4 to 8 AGs after the first 4:

dir number      rotor value       new inode location (AG)
  1               0                     0
  2               1                     1
  3               2                     2
  4               3                     3
<grow to 8 AGs>
  5               0                     0
  6               1                     1
  7               2                     2
  8               3                     3
  9               4                     4
  10              5                     5
  11              6                     6
  13              7                     7
  14              0                     0

real system these 4TB drives are actually 48TB LUNs.  I'm after
deterministic parallel bandwidth to subsequently added RAIDs after
each
grow operation by simply writing to the proper directory.

Just create new directories and use the inode number to
determine their location. If the directory is not in the correct AG,
remove it and create a new one, until you have directories located
in the AGs you want.

Cheers,

Dave.


Thanks for the info Dave.  Was hoping it would be more straightforward.

Modifying the app for this is out of the question.  They've spent 3+
years
developing with EXT4 and decided to try XFS at the last minute.
Product
is
to ship in October, so optimizations I can suggest are limited.

Perhaps you could actually tell us what the requirement for
layout/separation is, and how they are acheiving it with ext4. We
really need a more "directed" allocation ability, but it's not clear
exactly what requirements need to drive that.

Cheers,

Dave.

The test harness app writes to thousands of preallocated files in hundreds
of directories.  The target is ~250MB/s at the application per array, more
if achievable, writing a combination of fast and slow streams from up to
~1000 threads, to different files, circularly.  The mix of stream rates and
the files they write will depend on the end customers' needs.  Currently
they have 1 FS per array with 3 top level dirs each w/3 subdirs, 2 of these
with ~100 subdirs each, and hundreds files in each of those.  Simply doing
a concat, growing and just running with it might work fine.  The concern is
ending up with too many fast stream writers hitting AGs on a single array
which won't be able to keep up.  Currently they simply duplicate the layout
on each new filesystem they mount.  The application duplicates the same
layout on each filesystem and does its own load balancing among the group
of them.

Ideally they'd obviously like to simply add files to existing directories
after growing, but that won't achieve scalable bandwidth.


My apologies Dave. The above isn't really a description of a requirement, but simply how they do things currently. So let me take another stab at this. I think the generic requirement is best described as:

        Create a directory in the first AG in a range of specified
        AGs.  Create all child directories and files in AGs within the
        range of AGs, starting with the first AG.  In other words, we
        take the default behavior of the inode64 allocator and we apply
        it to a subset of AGs within the filesystem.  Something like...

agr = allocation group range

1.  mkdir $directory agr=0,47

2.  create $directory in AG0 and set flag in metadata to have inode64
    allocator rotor new child directories of this parent across only
    the AGs in the range specified

3.  file allocation policy need not be altered, files go in parent
    directory, parent AG.  If we spill due to AG free space do what
    we already do and allow writing outside of the AGs in agr


So when we expand the concat and grow XFS we simply do

~$ mkdir $directory agr=48,95

All child directories and files created in $directory will be allocated in AGs 48-95, only on the new LUN. Rinse and repeat.

Such a feature would provide everything needed I think for this particular workload. I can imagine there are similar workloads out there that would benefit from something like this given the prevalence of large concatenated RAID6s today. Another scenario that might benefit from something like this is short stroking of mechanical storage, but controlling it at the filesystem level instead of the block or controller layer.

Setting AGR with an mkdir switch might not fly due to it being a generic command for all filesystems. But it would sure be the most straightforward approach and easiest to use.

Due to the timetable and other restrictions I wouldn't be able to use patches that might come from fleshing out our ideas here, but I think it would be very useful functionality for others.

Cheers,

Stan

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