Linux Btrfs filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wang Yugui <wangyugui@e16-tech.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
Cc: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>,
	"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: simple Chunk allocator like calculation to replace Factor based calculation
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 17:01:25 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201002170124.20D8.409509F4@e16-tech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3cf4a1c4-b4a3-732d-6852-5b13e0cb1bf4@gmx.com>

Hi,

We have another user case difficult to process.

Use case: 
Add 10T disk * 4  to near full  full RAID10 10T *4;
free space maybe be such as 10T,10T,10T,10T,2G,2G,2G,2G.

There maybe a lot of iterations for this case because of 2G chunk size,
and then result in bad performance?

Best Regards
王玉贵
2020/10/02

> 
> 
> On 2020/10/2 上午9:59, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 
> >>> such as
> >>> 1) RAID10 with 8T,1T,1T,1T,1T
> >>>     the virtal chunk size of 1st iteration:	1T or 0.33T?
> >>>     1T    chunk will use 4T at most
> >>>     0.33T chunk will use 5.33T at most?
> >>
> >> You didn't get the point.
> >> For the each loop we:
> >> - Sort the devices with their free space.
> >>   In this case, it's 8, 1, 1, 1, 1.
> >>
> >> - Round down to dev increament
> >>   Then we got 8, 1, 1, 1.
> >>
> >> - Then allocate chunk
> >>   Since the biggest unallocated space is 1T, we allocate a RAID10 with
> >>   1T stripe size, which will be a 2T chunk.
> >>
> >>   The remaining size is 7, 0, 0, 0, 1.
> > 
> > That is the problem.  1T chunk size is too big for this case.
> > 
> > if we use 1/3T chunk size, the result will be same as 1G chunk size.
> > 
> > 1st:	8T - 1/3T     2/3T, 2/3T, 2/3T, 1T
> > 2nd:	8T -2/3T     2/3T, 1/3T, 1/3T, 2/3T
> > 3rd:	8T -1T        1/3T, 1/3T, 0T, 1/3T
> > 4th:	8T -4/3T     0T,     0T,   0T,  0T
> 
> You're right, smaller balloon chunk size would make the allocation more
> accurate to real chunk allocator.
> 
> However that would slow down the calculation, don't forget that we need
> to run that calculation on each chunk allocation.
> Changing the balloon chunk allocation size dynamically may improve this.
> 
> But please also keep in mind that, with less and less space left, our
> predication will be more and more accurate, and under estimate is always
> less a problem.
> 
> So I'll keep your suggestion for future enhancement.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the pitfall of current calculation,
> Qu
> 
> > 
> > Best Regards
> > 王玉贵
> > 2020/10/02
> > 
> >>
> >> - We go to next round.
> >>   No way to allocate new chunk.
> >>
> >> In this case, we can only get 2T chunk.
> >> Just as the chunk allocator do.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 2) RAID10 with 8T,1T,1T,1T,0.5T
> >>>     the virtal chunk size of 1st iteration:0.5T or smaller?
> >>
> >> Still the same, 2T chunk can be allocated using the largest 4 devices.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Qu
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards
> >>> 王玉贵
> >>> 2020/10/02
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------
> >>> 北京京垓科技有限公司
> >>> 王玉贵	wangyugui@e16-tech.com
> >>> 电话:+86-136-71123776
> >>>
> >>
> > 
> > --------------------------------------
> > 北京京垓科技有限公司
> > 王玉贵	wangyugui@e16-tech.com
> > 电话:+86-136-71123776
> > 
> 

--------------------------------------
北京京垓科技有限公司
王玉贵	wangyugui@e16-tech.com
电话:+86-136-71123776


  reply	other threads:[~2020-10-02  9:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20201001212617.82BC.409509F4@e16-tech.com>
     [not found] ` <20201001233649.888B.409509F4@e16-tech.com>
2020-10-01 23:38   ` simple Chunk allocator like calculation to replace Factor based calculation Qu Wenruo
2020-10-02  1:30     ` Wang Yugui
2020-10-02  1:46       ` Qu Wenruo
2020-10-02  1:59         ` Wang Yugui
2020-10-02  3:06           ` Qu Wenruo
2020-10-02  9:01             ` Wang Yugui [this message]
2020-10-02  9:15               ` Qu Wenruo
2020-10-02  9:06             ` Wang Yugui
2020-10-02 10:13               ` Hugo Mills
2020-10-02 10:23                 ` Hugo Mills

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=20201002170124.20D8.409509F4@e16-tech.com \
    --to=wangyugui@e16-tech.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
    --cc=wqu@suse.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