[Lustre-devel] max_dirty_mb and fsync

[Lustre-devel] max_dirty_mb and fsync

[Bradley W. Settlemyer]

Hello

   What is the difference between setting the max_dirty_mb setting in 
/proc to 4 and making sure that all of my applications fsync every 4MBs 
of data that are transmitted?

   I would guess that one difference is the 32MB is a filesystem-wide 
setting rather than a per file setting -- so the sync occurs regardless 
of the number of files receiving data.  But are there any other 
differences with regards to the interaction with the file system.

   More to the point perhaps, does an fsync have additional side effects 
beyond those that occur for the max_dirty_mb threshhold being exceeded?

Cheers,
Brad

[Lustre-devel] max_dirty_mb and fsync

[Bradley W. Settlemyer]

Obviously, when I write 32MB in the second paragraph I mean 4MB.  Sorry 
for the error.

Cheers
Brad


On 10/15/2009 02:52 PM, Bradley W. Settlemyer wrote:
> Hello
>
>     What is the difference between setting the max_dirty_mb setting in
> /proc to 4 and making sure that all of my applications fsync every 4MBs
> of data that are transmitted?
>
>     I would guess that one difference is the 32MB is a filesystem-wide
> setting rather than a per file setting -- so the sync occurs regardless
> of the number of files receiving data.  But are there any other
> differences with regards to the interaction with the file system.
>
>     More to the point perhaps, does an fsync have additional side effects
> beyond those that occur for the max_dirty_mb threshhold being exceeded?
>
> Cheers,
> Brad
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
>

[Lustre-devel] max_dirty_mb and fsync

[Andreas Dilger]

On 15-Oct-09, at 12:52, Bradley W. Settlemyer wrote:
>  What is the difference between setting the max_dirty_mb setting in
> /proc to 4 and making sure that all of my applications fsync every  
> 4MBs
> of data that are transmitted?
>
>  I would guess that one difference is the 32MB is a filesystem-wide
> setting rather than a per file setting -- so the sync occurs  
> regardless
> of the number of files receiving data.  But are there any other
> differences with regards to the interaction with the file system.
>
>  More to the point perhaps, does an fsync have additional side effects
> beyond those that occur for the max_dirty_mb threshhold being  
> exceeded?


One important distinction between max_dirty_mb (which is a Lustre  
mechanism
to avoid too much file cache memory pressure on the client node causing
application data to be paged out of memory) and an fsync() is  
max_dirty_mb
only pushes out file data to the OSTs on an as-needed basis, while  
fsync()
flushes ALL of the data, and also guarantees that you can ACCESS that  
data
after it was written to the OSTs/disks.

Whether on Lustre or a local filesystem, just because the blocks are  
on disk,
it doesn't mean that the metadata (either Lustre on the MDS, or ext3/ 
xfs/etc)
to access that data (whether for the pathname traversal, or the inode  
itself)
is also safe on disk.  This is one of the issues being discussed a lot  
on
linux-fsdevel regarding the semantics of O_DIRECT, which guarantees  
that the
DATA is on disk but it doesn't mean that the just-created inode or the  
mapping
for just-allocated blocks have made it to the disk at all.

That behaviour is fine for a database, which will generally always  
preallocate
the file on disk, so the only thing changing is the file data, but it  
may be
a surprise to other users of O_DIRECT.

That said, Lustre WILL of course write all of this data to disk as  
soon as
practical, without forcing everything to a standstill while the  
fsync() is
completed.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.