From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: max_sectors_kb limitations with VDO and dm-thin Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:18:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20190424211828.GB14367@redhat.com> References: <20190424194529.GA14367@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190424194529.GA14367@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Ryan Norwood Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Wed, Apr 24 2019 at 3:45pm -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Fri, Apr 19 2019 at 10:40am -0400, > Ryan Norwood wrote: > > > We have been using dm-thin layered above VDO and have noticed that our > > performance is not optimal for large sequential writes as max_sectors_kb > > and max_hw_sectors_kb for all thin devices are set to 4k due to the VDO > > layer beneath. > > This effectively eliminates the performance optimizations for sequential > > writes to skip both zeroing and COW overhead when a write fully overlaps a > > thin chunk as all bios are split into 4k which always be less than the 64k > > thin chunk minimum. > > Is this known behavior? Is there any way around this issue? > > Are you creating the thin-pool to use a 4K thinp blocksize? If not, > I'll have to look to see why the block core's block limits stacking > would impose these limits of the underlying data device. > > > We are using RHEL 7.5 with kernel 3.10.0-862.20.2.el7.x86_64. > > OK, please let me know what the thin-pool's blocksize is. Nevermind, I see you have done so in another portion of this thread.