Re: Btrfs slowdown with ceph (how to reproduce)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



2012/1/23 Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:19:29PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 01:13:37PM +0100, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> > As you might know, I have been seeing btrfs slowdowns in our ceph
>> > cluster for quite some time. Even with the latest btrfs code for 3.3
>> > I'm still seeing these problems. To make things reproducible, I've now
>> > written a small test, that imitates ceph's behavior:
>> >
>> > On a freshly created btrfs filesystem (2 TB size, mounted with
>> > "noatime,nodiratime,compress=lzo,space_cache,inode_cache") I'm opening
>> > 100 files. After that I'm doing random writes on these files with a
>> > sync_file_range after each write (each write has a size of 100 bytes)
>> > and ioctl(BTRFS_IOC_SYNC) after every 100 writes.
>> >
>> > After approximately 20 minutes, write activity suddenly increases
>> > fourfold and the average request size decreases (see chart in the
>> > attachment).
>> >
>> > You can find IOstat output here: http://pastebin.com/Smbfg1aG
>> >
>> > I hope that you are able to trace down the problem with the test
>> > program in the attachment.
>>
>> Ran it, saw the problem, tried the dangerdonteveruse branch in Chris's tree and
>> formatted the fs with 64k node and leaf sizes and the problem appeared to go
>> away.  So surprise surprise fragmentation is biting us in the ass.  If you can
>> try running that branch with 64k node and leaf sizes with your ceph cluster and
>> see how that works out.  Course you should only do that if you dont mind if you
>> lose everything :).  Thanks,
>>
>
> Please keep in mind this branch is only out there for development, and
> it really might have huge flaws.  scrub doesn't work with it correctly
> right now, and the IO error recovery code is probably broken too.
>
> Long term though, I think the bigger block sizes are going to make a
> huge difference in these workloads.
>
> If you use the very dangerous code:
>
> mkfs.btrfs -l 64k -n 64k /dev/xxx
>
> (-l is leaf size, -n is node size).
>
> 64K is the max right now, 32K may help just as much at a lower CPU cost.

Thanks for taking a look. - I'm glad to hear that there is a solution
on the horizon, but I'm not brave enough to try this on our ceph
cluster. I'll try it when the code has stabilized a bit.

Regards,
Christian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[CEPH Users]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux