Inode and dentry cache behavior
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com
Thu Apr 23 17:43:24 CDT 2015
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:50:15PM -0700, Shrinand Javadekar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am running Openstack Swift on a single server with 8 disks. All
> these 8 disks are formatted with default XFS parameters. Each disk has
> a capacity of 3TB. The machine has 64GB of data.
>
> Here's what Openstack Swift does:
....
> * We observe that the time for fsync remains pretty much constant throughout.
> * What seems to be causing the performance to nosedive, is that inode
> and dentry caching doesn't seem to be working.
> * For experiment sake, we set vfs_cache_pressure to 0 so there would
> be no reclaiming of inode and dentry cache entries. However, that does
> not seem to help.
> * We see openat() calls taking close to 1 second.
>
> Any ideas, what might be causing this behavior? Are there other
> params, specifically, xfs params that can be tuned for this workload.
> The sequence of events above is the typical workload, at high
> concurrency.
Work out why you're disks are reporting 100% utilisation when they
have little or no IO being issued to them.
> See the attached files iostat_log and vmstat_log.
from the iostat log:
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
.....
dm-6 0.00 0.00 0.20 22.40 0.00 0.09 8.00 22.28 839.01 1224.00 835.57 44.25 100.00
dm-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 8.00 2.82 1517.33 0.00 1517.33 833.33 100.00
dm-8 0.00 0.00 0.00 195.20 0.00 0.76 8.00 1727.51 4178.89 0.00 4178.89 5.12 100.00
...
dm-7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
dm-8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1178.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
dm-7 is showing almost a second for single IO wait times, when it is
actually completing IO. dm-8 has a massive queue depth - I can only
assume you've tuned sys/block/*/queue/nr_requests to something
really large? But like dm-7, it's showing very long IO times, and
that's likely the source of your latency problems.
i.e. this looks like a storage problem, not an XFS problem.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com
More information about the xfs
mailing list