All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
To: Sonny Rao <sonny@burdell.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: Odd Block allocation behavior on Reiser3
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 21:31:36 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <411976F8.2070004@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040810231219.GA72358@kevlar.burdell.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sonny Rao wrote:
| On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 02:50:13PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
|
|>On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 14:25, Chris Mason wrote:
|>
|>>On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 13:52, Hans Reiser wrote:
|>>
|>>>Sonny Rao wrote:
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>>On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:16:39AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
|>>>>
|>>>>
|>>>>
|>>>>>Interesting.What happens without overwrite, that is, if you write
more
|>>>>>files without deleting the old ones?
|>>>>>
|>>>>>
|>>>>
|>>>>Below I made 24 one gigabyte files in sequence
|>>>>All of them are similarly fragmented:
|>>>>data # filefrag *
|>>>>datafile0: 268 extents found
|>>>>
|>>>
|>>>this could explain some reiser3 performance problems.   This is what
|>>>happens when I spend all my time chasing funding and don't spend it
|>>>reviewing code and benchmarks, sigh.
|>>>
|>>>Thanks for spotting this.  I would be curious if this is occuring near
|>>>the transition between unformatted nodes and their parents, or
something
|>>>else.
|>>
|>>There have been a few threads on this on reiserfs-list
|>>
|>>singer:/data # dd if=/dev/zero of=foo bs=1MB count=1000
|>>1000+0 records in
|>>1000+0 records out
|>>singer:/data # filefrag foo
|>>foo: 1 extent found
|>>
|>>The new allocator really should be doing a better job here.
|>
|>Hmpf, that's what I get for expecting filefrag to work properly on
|>amd64.  The actual number of extents is 199, which is still better then
|>268.  Using fibmap, the fragmentation percentage is still the same as
|>ext3 (99.99% unfragmented) meaning the length between the extents is
|>quite small.
|>
|>If you mount with:
|>
|>mount -o alloc=skip_busy:oid_groups
|>
|>You get 8 extents on a 1GB file.
|>
|>This is because the oid grouping tries much harder to isolate the file
|>data from data from other files and metadata.  It is far from optimal
|>for normal usage, but for huge files it works nicely.
|>
|
|
| Is that "oid_groups" option present in the stock 2.6.7 kernel?  It
| didn't like that mount option, and a cursory grep for "oid_groups" in
| linux-2.6.7/fs/reiserfs/* doesn't show me anything.  The "skip_busy"
| option worked but didn't seem to change allocation behavior.

The oid_groups option is present in 2.6.8-pre releases, but only before
that from Chris Mason's FTP archive.

As far as skip_busy, there's two reasons for that: 1) The skip_busy
behavior was the default, and 2) skip_busy was never meant to be a full
scale allocation algorithm, just a way of keeping a pool of available
blocks close to already allocated files. When there's no hinting
involved, it ends up being poor for allocation - it will select the
first block available on disk when the file doesn't already exist. I
warned about this when I first submitted the code.

- -Jeff

- --
Jeff Mahoney
SuSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGXb4LPWxlyuTD7IRAlFrAJ4lvW20RLzhFhLq4V0OMTDVFGsWwACfahaG
Jbb5Cq74+nI5Se90SdWrmsQ=
=hfS5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  reply	other threads:[~2004-08-11  1:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-08-09 20:19 Odd Block allocation behavior on Reiser3 Sonny Rao
2004-08-09 20:30 ` Chris Mason
2004-08-09 22:04   ` Sonny Rao
2004-08-10  7:16     ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 15:45       ` Sonny Rao
2004-08-10 17:52         ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 18:25           ` Chris Mason
2004-08-10 18:50             ` Chris Mason
2004-08-10 19:42               ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 20:29                 ` Chris Mason
2004-08-10 21:47                   ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 23:12               ` Sonny Rao
2004-08-11  1:31                 ` Jeff Mahoney [this message]
2004-08-10 19:40             ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 23:00               ` Sonny Rao
2004-08-10 20:12           ` Why larger extent counts aren't necessarily bad (was Re: Odd Block allocation behavior on Reiser3) Jeff Mahoney
2004-09-09 17:04             ` Hans Reiser
2004-08-10 12:53     ` Odd Block allocation behavior on Reiser3 Chris Mason
2004-08-10 16:12       ` Sonny Rao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=411976F8.2070004@suse.com \
    --to=jeffm@suse.com \
    --cc=mason@suse.com \
    --cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.com \
    --cc=sonny@burdell.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.