xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS and nobarrier with SSDs
From: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:44:55 -0800
Cc: Linux Block mailing list <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS mailing list <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux FS-Devel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20151214102750.GA29192@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <E127700EFE58FD45BD6298EAC813FA42020D8173@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3496214.YTSKClH6pV@merkaba> <566E6524.6070401@xxxxxxxxxx> <3911767.qVqsL1TcMv@merkaba> <20151214095823.GA30662@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <566E978E.2070502@xxxxxxxxxx> <20151214102750.GA29192@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird


Christoph Hellwig wrote:
The rule of thumb is: if nobarrier makes your workload run faster you
should not be using it, aka: don't use it.
----
        So what is the purpose of the switch if it is to only
be used when it makes no difference?

I.e. My raid controller does write-through if it's internal
battery needs replacing, otherwise, it does write-back.

On top of that my system is on a UPS that is good for a hour or more
of running.
So, I used to use nobarrier on "work" disks where there were likely
to be alot of "writes".  Those disks are also backed up daily via
xfsdump/restore.  I figured those would benefit most, and at worst
I could restore to previous morning's backup.

Eventually stopped using the option, as for the most part, I couldn't
really measure any reliable difference in performance (which means
I should use it?!?).

Hmmm...

The only times I have experienced disk corruption on a single
disk were either back before I ever tried the option, or when
I had several months to a year where I tried to use software
RAID5 (several-10+ years ago, before it was possible to use
multiple cores for doing some RAID operations).

I doubt I'm going to try it again soon, but being told that
it's only "ok" to use an option when it makes no difference
in performance *sounds* more than a little confusing.

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