From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Patrick Goetz <pgoetz@math.utexas.edu>,
linux-nfs <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: parallel file create rates (+high latency)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:22:32 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220425132232.GA24825@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt2mGMt3Sq66qmPBeGYE0CASTTy7nY2K_LjQK6VZx-uz2P-wg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 02:00:32PM +0100, Daire Byrne wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 13:59, Daire Byrne <daire@dneg.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 at 07:46, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > I've ported it to mainline without much trouble. I started some simple
> > > testing (parallel create/delete of the same file) and hit a bug quite
> > > easily. I fixed that (eventually) and then tried with more than 1 CPU,
> > > and hit another bug. But then it was quitting time. If I can get rid
> > > of all the easy to find bugs, I'll post it with a CC to you, and you can
> > > find some more for me!
> >
> > That would be awesome! I have a real world production case for this
> > and it's a pretty heavy workload. If that doesn't shake out any bugs,
> > nothing will.
> >
> > The only caveat being that it will likely be restricted to NFSv3
> > testing due to the concurrency limitations with NFSv4.1+ (from the
> > other thread).
> >
> > Daire
>
> Just to follow up on this again - I have been using Neil's patch for
> parallel file creates (thanks!) but I'm a bit confused as to why it
> doesn't seem to help in my NFS re-export case.
>
> With the patch, I can achieve much higher parallel (multi process)
> creates directly on my re-export server to a high latency remote
> server mount, but when I re-export that to multiple clients, the
> aggregate create rate again degrades to that which we might expect
> either without the patch or if there was only one process creating the
> files in sequence.
>
> My assumption was that the nfsd threads of the re-export server would
> act as multiple independent processes and it's clients would be spread
> across them such that they would also benefit from the parallel
> creates patch on the re-export server. So I expected many clients
> creating files in the same directory would achieve much higher
> aggregate performance.
That's the idea.
I've lost track, where's the latest version of Neil's patch?
--b.
>
> Am I missing some other interaction here that limits parallel
> performance in my unusual re-export case?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daire
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-25 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-23 23:53 parallel file create rates (+high latency) Daire Byrne
2022-01-24 13:52 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-24 19:37 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-01-24 20:10 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-24 20:50 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-01-25 12:52 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-25 13:59 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-01-25 15:24 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-25 15:30 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-01-25 21:50 ` Patrick Goetz
2022-01-25 21:58 ` Chuck Lever III
2022-01-25 21:59 ` Bruce Fields
2022-01-25 22:11 ` Patrick Goetz
2022-01-25 22:41 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-25 23:01 ` Patrick Goetz
2022-01-25 23:25 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-25 21:15 ` Patrick Goetz
2022-01-25 21:20 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-01-26 0:02 ` NeilBrown
2022-01-26 0:28 ` Daire Byrne
2022-01-26 2:57 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-02-08 18:48 ` Daire Byrne
2022-02-10 18:19 ` Daire Byrne
2022-02-11 15:59 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-02-17 19:50 ` Daire Byrne
2022-02-18 7:46 ` NeilBrown
2022-02-21 13:59 ` Daire Byrne
2022-04-25 13:00 ` Daire Byrne
2022-04-25 13:22 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2022-04-25 15:24 ` Daire Byrne
2022-04-25 16:02 ` J. Bruce Fields
2022-04-25 16:47 ` Daire Byrne
2022-04-26 1:36 ` NeilBrown
2022-04-26 12:29 ` Daire Byrne
2022-04-28 5:46 ` NeilBrown
2022-04-29 7:55 ` Daire Byrne
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=20220425132232.GA24825@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=daire@dneg.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=pgoetz@math.utexas.edu \
/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