inode64 mount option for XFS

inode64 mount option for XFS

[Wido den Hollander]

Hi,

While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.

init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime

As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?

Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments?

-- 
Wido den Hollander
42on B.V.
Ceph trainer and consultant

Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
Skype: contact42on

Re: inode64 mount option for XFS

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Am 03.11.2014 um 13:28 schrieb Wido den Hollander:
> Hi,
> 
> While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.
> 
> init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
> ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime
> 
> As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?
> 
> Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments?

Isn't inode64 XFS default anyway?

Stefan

Re: inode64 mount option for XFS

[Wido den Hollander]

On 11/03/2014 01:34 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> 
> Am 03.11.2014 um 13:28 schrieb Wido den Hollander:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.
>>
>> init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
>> ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime
>>
>> As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?
>>
>> Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments?
> 
> Isn't inode64 XFS default anyway?
> 

The XFS website suggests it isn't:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_is_the_inode64_mount_option_for.3F

"By default, with 32bit inodes, XFS places inodes only in the first 1TB
of a disk."

However, if you look at bit further:
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_status_update_for_2012

"Linux 3.7 will be a fairly boring release as far as XFS is concerned,
the biggest user visible changes are an intelligent implementation of
the lseek SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA calls, and finally the switch to use the
inode64 allocator by default. "

So it seems you are partially right. It depends on the kernel you are
running if it is enabled by default.

Wido

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


-- 
Wido den Hollander
42on B.V.
Ceph trainer and consultant

Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
Skype: contact42on

Re: inode64 mount option for XFS

[Sage Weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.
> 
> init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
> ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime
> 
> As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?

I noticed this a while back but didn't finish fixing it.. can you take a 
look at wip-xfs-inode64 and see if it looks right?
 
> Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments?

I don't think so!  Note that on new kernels I think inode64 is now the 
default, so this is really about performance on older systems (precise, 
rhel6, probably).

sage

> 
> -- 
> Wido den Hollander
> 42on B.V.
> Ceph trainer and consultant
> 
> Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
> Skype: contact42on
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 

Re: inode64 mount option for XFS

[Wido den Hollander]

On 11/03/2014 03:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.
>>
>> init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
>> ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime
>>
>> As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?
> 
> I noticed this a while back but didn't finish fixing it.. can you take a 
> look at wip-xfs-inode64 and see if it looks right?
>  

Looks good to me. Simple fix, but that should do it.

>> Any implications if we add inode64 on running deployments?
> 
> I don't think so!  Note that on new kernels I think inode64 is now the 
> default, so this is really about performance on older systems (precise, 
> rhel6, probably).
> 

Yes, I noticed that later on. But it gives consistency. Ubuntu precise
and RHEL 6 will be around for quite some time, so it would be better to
enable it for those systems as well.

Wido

> sage
> 
>>
>> -- 
>> Wido den Hollander
>> 42on B.V.
>> Ceph trainer and consultant
>>
>> Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
>> Skype: contact42on
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


-- 
Wido den Hollander
42on B.V.
Ceph trainer and consultant

Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902
Skype: contact42on

Re: inode64 mount option for XFS

[Sage Weil]

On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> On 11/03/2014 03:20 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Wido den Hollander wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> While look at init-ceph and ceph-disk I noticed a discrepancy between them.
> >>
> >> init-ceph mounts XFS filesystems with rw,noatime,inode64, but
> >> ceph-disk(-active) with rw,noatime
> >>
> >> As inode64 gives the best performance, shouldn't ceph-disk do the same?
> > 
> > I noticed this a while back but didn't finish fixing it.. can you take a 
> > look at wip-xfs-inode64 and see if it looks right?
> >  
> 
> Looks good to me. Simple fix, but that should do it.

..and I just realized this is already merged into giant.  Pushed a 
backport to the firefly branch.

Thanks!
sage