From: Christoph Litauer <litauer@uni-koblenz.de>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Performance problems with millions of inodes
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 16:46:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48625A46.1060206@uni-koblenz.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4862598B.80905@uni-koblenz.de>
Christoph Litauer schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> sorry if this has been asked before, I am new to this mailing list. I
> didn't find any hints in the FAQ or by googling ...
>
> I have a backup server driving two kinds of backup software: bacula and
> backuppc. bacula saves it's backups on raid1, backuppc on raid2
> (different hardware, but both fast hardware raids).
> I have massive performance problems with backuppc which I tracked down
> to performance problems of the filesystem on raid2 (I think so). The
> main difference between the two backup systems is that backuppc uses
> millions of inodes for it's backup (in fact it duplicates the directory
> structure of the backup client).
>
> raid1 consists of 91675 inodes, raid2 of 143646439. The filesystems were
> created without any options. raid1 is about 7 TB, raid2 about 10TB. Both
> filesystems are mounted with options
> '(rw,noatime,nodiratime,ihashsize=65536)'.
>
> I used bonnie++ to benchmark both filesystems. Here are the results of
> 'bonnie++ -u root -f -n 10:0:0:1000':
>
> raid1:
> -------------------
> Sequential Output: 82505 K/sec
> Sequential Input : 102192 K/sec
> Sequential file creation: 7184/sec
> Random file creation : 17277/sec
>
> raid2:
> -------------------
> Sequential Output: 124802 K/sec
> Sequential Input : 109158 K/sec
> Sequential file creation: 123/sec
> Random file creation : 138/sec
>
> As you can see, raid2's throughput is higher than raid1's. But the file
> creation times are rather slow ...
>
> Maybe the 143 million inodes cause this effect? Any idea how to avoid it?
>
Just another (xfs_)info about raid2:
meta-data=/dev/backuppc/backuppc isize=256 agcount=32,
agsize=79691776 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=2550136832, imaxpct=25
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks, unwritten=1
naming =version 2 bsize=4096
log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=32768, version=1
= sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
--
Regards
Christoph
________________________________________________________________________
Christoph Litauer litauer@uni-koblenz.de
Uni Koblenz, Computing Center, http://www.uni-koblenz.de/~litauer
Postfach 201602, 56016 Koblenz Fon: +49 261 287-1311, Fax: -100 1311
PGP-Fingerprint: F39C E314 2650 650D 8092 9514 3A56 FBD8 79E3 27B2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-25 14:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-25 14:43 Performance problems with millions of inodes Christoph Litauer
2008-06-25 14:46 ` Christoph Litauer [this message]
2008-06-25 16:02 ` Emmanuel Florac
2008-06-25 17:00 ` Mark
2008-06-26 11:29 ` Christoph Litauer
2008-06-25 23:12 ` Dave Chinner
2008-06-26 7:29 ` Christoph Litauer
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=48625A46.1060206@uni-koblenz.de \
--to=litauer@uni-koblenz.de \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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.