linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Becker <floyd.net@gmail.com>
To: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Policy to balance read across mirrored devices
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:52:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEtw4r1gZCexSZnq_G43d55MwpXN0s-vS2Uyn2M9N2Cvi15QYA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cd9f0109-8c7c-3c98-53d8-100f06dcd46f@oracle.com>

This is all clear. My question referes to "use the lower devid disk
containing the stripe"

2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>:
>  When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
>  use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (instead of failing back
>  to the pid based random disk).

Use only one disk (the disk with the lowest devid that containing the
stripe) as fallback should be not a good option imho.
Instead of it should still be used the pid as fallback to distribute
the workload among all available drives.

[stripe to use] = [preffer stripes present on read_mirror_policy
devids] > [fallback to pid % stripe count]

Perhaps I'm not be able to express myself in English or did I misunderstand you?

2018-01-31 15:26 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>:
>
>
> On 01/31/2018 06:47 PM, Peter Becker wrote:
>>
>> 2018-01-31 10:01 GMT+01:00 Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>:
>>>
>>>   When a stripe is not present on the read optimized disk it will just
>>>   use the lower devid disk containing the stripe (instead of failing back
>>>   to the pid based random disk).
>>
>>
>> Is this a good behavior? beause this would eliminate every performance
>> benefit of the pid base random disk pick if the requested stripe is
>> not present on the read optimized disk.
>> Wouldn't it be better to specify a fallback and use the pid base
>> random pick as default for the fallback.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> RAID 1 over 4 disk's
>>
>> devid | rpm | size
>> ------------------------
>> 1 | 7200 rpm | 3 TB
>> 2 | 7200 rpm | 3 TB
>> 3 | 5400 rpm | 4 TB
>> 4 | 5400 rpm | 4 TB
>>
>> mount -o read_mirror_policy=1,read_mirror_policy=2
>>
>> Cases:
>> 1. if the requested stripe is on devid 3 and 4 the algorithm should
>> choise on of both randomly to incresse performance instead of read
>> everytime from 3 and never from 4
>> 2. if the requested stripe is on devid 1 and 3, all is fine ( in case
>> of the queue deep of 1 isn't mutch larger then the queue deep of 3 )
>> 3. if the requested stripe is on devid 1 and 2, the algorithm should
>> choise on of both randomly to incresse performance instead of read
>> everytime from 1 and never from 2
>
>>
>>
>> And all randomly picks of a device should be replaced by a heuristic
>> algorithm wo respect the queue deep and sequential reads in the
>> future.
>
>
>  This scenario is very well handled by the pid/heuristic based
>  read load balancer, pid based read load balancer is by default still,
>  Tim has written IO load based read balancer which can be set using
>  this mount option when all integrated together, and it needs
>  experiments to see if it can be by default replacing the pid method.
>  Further as of now we don't do allocation grouping, so if you have two
>  ssd and two hd in a RAID1 its not guaranteed that allocation will
>  always span across a SSD and a HD, so there is bit of randomness
>  in the allocation itself.
>
> Thanks, Anand

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-31 14:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-30  6:30 [PATCH 0/2] Policy to balance read across mirrored devices Anand Jain
2018-01-30  6:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: add mount option read_mirror_policy Anand Jain
2018-01-31  8:06   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-01-31  9:06     ` Anand Jain
2018-01-30  6:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: add read_mirror_policy parameter devid Anand Jain
2018-01-31  8:38   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-01-31  9:28     ` Anand Jain
2018-01-31  9:54       ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-01-31 13:38         ` Anand Jain
2018-01-31 13:42           ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-01-31 14:36             ` Anand Jain
2018-02-01  5:26               ` Edmund Nadolski
2018-02-01  8:12                 ` Anand Jain
2018-02-01 23:46                   ` Edmund Nadolski
2018-02-02 12:36                     ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2018-02-05  7:21                       ` Anand Jain
2018-01-31  7:51 ` [PATCH 0/2] Policy to balance read across mirrored devices Peter Becker
2018-01-31  9:01   ` Anand Jain
2018-01-31 10:47     ` Peter Becker
2018-01-31 14:26       ` Anand Jain
2018-01-31 14:52         ` Peter Becker [this message]
2018-01-31 16:11           ` Austin S. Hemmelgarn
2018-01-31 16:40             ` Peter Becker

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=CAEtw4r1gZCexSZnq_G43d55MwpXN0s-vS2Uyn2M9N2Cvi15QYA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=floyd.net@gmail.com \
    --cc=anand.jain@oracle.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).