xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Looking to confirm issue and seek advice on fix for inode btree frag

To: Pippin Wallace <nippip@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Looking to confirm issue and seek advice on fix for inode btree fragmentation
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:03:03 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CA+muJ0thea8xOJB8c2CJj1GAVa48EUvRYf7-3oS_zYc+T5R6yg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CA+muJ0thea8xOJB8c2CJj1GAVa48EUvRYf7-3oS_zYc+T5R6yg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 05:35:31PM -0600, Pippin Wallace wrote:
> I am writing to confirm the issue I think I have and get advice on the best
> short term and long term âfixesâ.
> 
> 
> 
> In reading the following threads and others I am pretty sure I have inode
> btree fragmentation and I have included detailed output below to help
> confirm this.

Make a new filesystem with a current xfsprogs 3.2.4, and it will use
the new free inode btree for allocation that was designed to avoid
this problem.

> Long term fix is upgrade kernel to >= 3.16, xfsprogs >=3.2.1 and rebuild fs
> with new finobt structure.
> 
>         # mkfs.xfs -m crc=1,finobt=1 <dev>

i.e. there are the default mkfs options in xfsprogs >= 3.2.3.

It's really the only viable fix, especially given that you can't use
inode64. And, realistically, it's still going to cause problems
unless you ensure that you have smaller-than-default AGs (e.g. 250GB
AGs) so that there are multiple inode btrees in the 32-bit inode
number region of the filesystem.(*)

(*) which is actually the first 2TB of the filesystem with CRC
enabled filesystems because the inode size is 512 bytes...

> *KERNEL OPTIONS: Which of these kernels should I choose for the best XFS
> support for this issue?*

One your distro vendor supports; the newer the better.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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