From: "Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>
To: Timofey Titovets <nefelim4ag@gmail.com>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to speed up unlink()?
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 08:09:14 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <00101fd7-39e0-903c-5151-f2458259fd62@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGqmi779inZ8CcXpJ_uX1XXTGS_JrhKNagbL8ms6vA9eVZBFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 2016-10-20 05:29, Timofey Titovets wrote:
> Hi, i use btrfs for NFS VM replica storage and for NFS shared VM storage.
> At now i have a small problem what VM image deletion took to long time
> and NFS client show a timeout on deletion
> (ESXi Storage migration as example).
>
> Kernel: Linux nfs05 4.7.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.7.5-1~bpo8+2
> (2016-10-01) x86_64 GNU/Linux
> Mount options: noatime,compress-force=zlib,space_cache,commit=180
> Feature enabled:
> big_metadata:1
> compress_lzo:1
> extended_iref:1
> mixed_backref:1
> no_holes:1
> skinny_metadata:1
>
> AFAIK, unlink() return only when all references to all extents from
> unlinked inode will be deleted
> So with compression enabled files have a many many refs to each
> compressed chunk.
> So, it's possible to return unlink() early? or this a bad idea(and why)?
I may be completely off about this, but I could have sworn that unlink()
returns when enough info is on the disk that both:
1. The file isn't actually visible in the directory.
2. If the system crashes, the filesystem will know to finish the cleanup.
Out of curiosity, what are the mount options (and export options) for
the NFS share? I have a feeling that that's also contributing. In
particular, if you're on a reliable network, forcing UDP for mounting
can significantly help performance, and if your server is reliable, you
can set NFS to run asynchronously to make unlink() return almost
immediately.
Now, on top of that, you should probably look at adding 'lazytime' to
the mount options for BTRFS. This will cause updates to file
time-stamps (not just atime, but mtime also, it has no net effect on
ctime though, because a ctime update means something else in the inode
got updated) to be deferred up to 24 hours or until the next time the
inode would be written out, which can significantly improve performance
on BTRFS because of the write-amplification. It's not hugely likely to
improve performance for unlink(), but it should improve write
performance some, which may help in general.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-20 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-20 9:29 Is it possible to speed up unlink()? Timofey Titovets
2016-10-20 12:09 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn [this message]
2016-10-20 13:47 ` Timofey Titovets
2016-10-20 14:44 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-10-20 17:33 ` ronnie sahlberg
2016-10-20 17:44 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2016-10-20 15:26 ` Roman Mamedov
2016-10-20 15:49 ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
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=00101fd7-39e0-903c-5151-f2458259fd62@gmail.com \
--to=ahferroin7@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nefelim4ag@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).