From: Marc MERLIN <marc@merlins.org>
To: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: counting fragments takes more time than defragmenting
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:20:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150624032008.GF20517@merlins.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150604084245.GR23272@merlins.org>
Hello again,
Just curious, is anyone seeing similar things with big VM images or other
DBs?
I forgot to mention that my vdi file is 88GB.
It's surprising that it took longer to count the fragments than to actually
defragment the file.
Or that it took 3 defrag runs to get down to 11K extents from 104K.
Are others seeing similar things?
Marc
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 05:42:45PM +0900, Marc MERLIN wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> After our quick chat, I gave it a shot on 3.19.6, and things are better
> than last time I tried.
>
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs# lsattr Win7/
> ---------------C Win7/Logs
> ---------------C Win7/Snapshots
> ---------------C Win7/Win7.vdi
> ---------------C Win7/Win7.png
> ---------------C Win7/autotune1.png
> ---------------C Win7/new_autotune2.png
> ---------------C Win7/Win7.vbox-prev
> ---------------C Win7/Win7.vbox
>
> But I have snapshots of that subvolume, so obviously that gets
> in the way of disabling COW.
>
> I had a look, and I have 100K fragments. That took 10mn to figure out:
>
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs/Win7# filefrag Win7.vdi
> Win7.vdi: 104306 extents found
>
> This first filefrag run took about 10mn to count all the fragments on my
> SSD. That feels a bit slow, but maybe the userland tool is doing things
> in suboptimal ways.
>
> Defrag actually worked (mostly) and wasn't too slow. It used to take hours
> not to finish, and now it worked in 3mn:
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs/Win7# time btrfs fi defrag Win7.vdi
> real 3m43.807s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m44.044s
>
> This is defintely better than before.
> Note that it's not fully defragged, but close enough. Each subsequent
> run, filefrag is faster, and defrag is still faster than filefrag:
>
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs/Win7# time filefrag Win7.vdi
> Win7.vdi: 11428 extents found
> real 2m42.090s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 2m37.308s
>
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs/Win7# time btrfs fi defrag Win7.vdi
> real 0m7.483s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m2.672s
>
> legolas:/var/local/nobck/VirtualBox VMs/Win7# time filefrag Win7.vdi
> Win7.vdi: 11132 extents found
> real 0m22.525s
> user 0m0.000s
> sys 0m22.264s
>
> It's a bit unexpected that I still have 10k fragments after 2 defrag
> runs, but it's better than 100k :)
>
> Marc
> --
> "A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
> Microsoft is to operating systems ....
> .... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
> Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | PGP 1024R/763BE901
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-24 3:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-04 8:42 counting fragments takes more time than defragmenting Marc MERLIN
2015-06-24 3:20 ` Marc MERLIN [this message]
2015-06-24 8:28 ` Patrik Lundquist
2015-06-24 10:46 ` Duncan
2015-06-24 12:05 ` Patrik Lundquist
2015-06-25 4:01 ` Duncan
2015-06-25 6:30 ` Patrik Lundquist
2015-07-14 11:57 ` Patrik Lundquist
2015-07-14 17:32 ` Duncan
2015-07-14 18:41 ` Hugo Mills
2015-07-14 19:09 ` Patrik Lundquist
2015-07-14 19:15 ` Hugo Mills
2015-07-21 15:35 ` Patrik Lundquist
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=20150624032008.GF20517@merlins.org \
--to=marc@merlins.org \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox