From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Alan Piszcz <ap@solarrain.com>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs]
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:36:07 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <493A9BE7.3090001@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0812060928030.14215@p34.internal.lan>
Justin Piszcz wrote:
> Someone should write a document with XFS and barrier support, if I recall,
> in the past, they never worked right on raid1 or raid5 devices, but it
> appears now they they work on RAID1, which slows down performance ~12 times!!
What sort of document do you propose? xfs will enable barriers on any
block device which will support them, and after:
deeb5912db12e8b7ccf3f4b1afaad60bc29abed9
[XFS] Disable queue flag test in barrier check.
xfs is able to determine, via a test IO, that md raid1 does pass
barriers through properly even though it doesn't set an ordered flag on
the queue.
> l1:~# /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar
> 0.15user 1.54system 0:13.18elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+325minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> l1:~#
>
> l1:~# /usr/bin/time tar xf linux-2.6.27.7.tar
> 0.14user 1.66system 2:39.68elapsed 1%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (0major+324minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> l1:~#
>
> Before:
> /dev/md2 / xfs defaults,noatime 0 1
>
> After:
> /dev/md2 / xfs defaults,noatime,nobarrier,logbufs=8,logbsize=262144 0 1
Well, if you're investigating barriers can you do a test with just the
barrier option change; though I expect you'll still find it to have a
substantial impact.
> There is some mention of it here:
> http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#wcache_persistent
>
> But basically I believe it should be noted in the kernel logs, FAQ or somewhere
> because just through the process of upgrading the kernel, not changing fstab
> or any other part of the system, performance can drop 12x just because the
> newer kernels implement barriers.
Perhaps:
printk(KERN_ALERT "XFS is now looking after your metadata very
carefully; if you prefer the old, fast, dangerous way, mount with -o
nobarrier\n");
:)
Really, this just gets xfs on md raid1 in line with how it behaves on
most other devices.
But I agree, some documentation/education is probably in order; if you
choose to disable write caches or you have faith in the battery backup
of your write cache, turning off barriers would be a good idea. Justin,
it might be interesting to do some tests with:
barrier, write cache enabled
nobarrier, write cache enabled
nobarrier, write cache disabled
a 12x hit does hurt though... If you're really motivated, try the same
scenarios on ext3 and ext4 to see what the barrier hit is on those as well.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-12-06 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-12-06 14:28 12x performance drop on md/linux+sw raid1 due to barriers [xfs] Justin Piszcz
2008-12-06 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2008-12-06 20:35 ` Redeeman
2008-12-13 12:54 ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-13 17:26 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-13 17:40 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-12-14 3:31 ` Redeeman
2008-12-14 14:02 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:12 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 22:02 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-15 22:38 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-16 9:39 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-16 20:57 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-16 23:14 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-17 21:40 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-18 8:20 ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 23:33 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-21 19:16 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-22 13:19 ` Leon Woestenberg
2008-12-18 22:26 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-20 14:06 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-14 18:35 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 17:49 ` Martin Steigerwald
2008-12-14 23:36 ` Dave Chinner
2008-12-13 18:01 ` David Lethe
2008-12-06 18:42 ` Peter Grandi
2008-12-11 0:20 ` Bill Davidsen
2008-12-11 9:18 ` Justin Piszcz
2008-12-11 9:24 ` Justin Piszcz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-12-14 18:33 Martin Steigerwald
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=493A9BE7.3090001@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=ap@solarrain.com \
--cc=jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).