| To: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS on top of LVM span in AWS. Stripe or are AG's good enough? |
| From: | Jeff Gibson <jgibson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:23:51 +0000 |
| Accept-language: | en-US |
| Authentication-results: | spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=jgibson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=spscommerce.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-spscommerce-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=nG6ujlZ1BlER6Jh08Fj6YiMbLenNZiyWxurzSOlrNGE=; b=ronS6qfbdqJfcaJj5mBoLokn+HCByeKT+vKaZjZq04BIlg9r0d9H8NoZroHK9i9YswyZWqCOWU9ygOhZS9jXtlK+lDbLfmfvcsKBt/YsQA74kMjC2cO0ZzsqTX1D8KtCFhG8Rn0yY9N64N65NplqnCkoOiWnoaHKO8kBX2/oDho= |
| In-reply-to: | <6ec8fbba-27ff-7386-e72a-d9f8e81f9252@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <CY1PR04MB20100FE6C3039717BD27825AAC120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160816005931.GD19025@dastard> <CY1PR04MB20106F50E177A61934986A92AC130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,<6ec8fbba-27ff-7386-e72a-d9f8e81f9252@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Spamdiagnosticmetadata: | NSPM |
| Spamdiagnosticoutput: | 1:99 |
| Thread-index: | AQHR9+TkMWWTjAmAcUOJYmyXQ/kkw6BNVz5h |
| Thread-topic: | XFS on top of LVM span in AWS. Stripe or are AG's good enough? |
Thanks for the great info guys. Sorry to beat a dead horse here. Just to be absolutely clear- > > I guess what I'm trying to ask is - will XFS *indirectly* compensate > > if one subvolume is busier? For example, if writes to a "slow" > > subvolume and resident AGs take longer to complete, will XFS tend to > > prefer to use other less-busy AGs more often (with the exception of > > locality) for writes? What is the basic algorithm for determining > > where new data is written? In load-balancer terms, does it > > round-robin, pick the least busy, etc? > > xfs has no notion of fast vs slow regions. See above for the basic > algorithm; it's round-robin for new directories, keep inodes and blocks > near their parent if possible. So if one EBS LVM subvolume has subpar performance it will basically slow down writes to the whole XFS volume. XFS doesn't have any notion of a queue per AG or any other mechanism for compensating uneven performance of AGs. > There are a few other smaller-granularity > heuristics related to stripe geometry as well. Oh, cool. Since I'm considering stripe vs. linear for the LVM volume, I'd be very interested in what these are. Thank you again, JG |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: shrink_active_list/try_to_release_page bug? (was Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage), Andreas GrÃnbacher |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS on top of LVM span in AWS. Stripe or are AG's good enough?, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS on top of LVM span in AWS. Stripe or are AG's good enough?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS on top of LVM span in AWS. Stripe or are AG's good enough?, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |