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
next prev parent 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).