public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nathan Scott <nscott@aconex.com>
To: "Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)" <raziebe@gmail.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] xfs allocation bitmap method over linux raid
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:38:13 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1169678294.18017.200.camel@edge> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5d96567b0701232234y2ff15762sbd1aaada5c3a0a0@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Raz,

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 08:34 +0200, Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro) wrote:
> David Hello.
> I have looked up in LKML and hopefully you are the one to ask in
> regard to xfs file system in Linux.
> My name is Raz and I work for a video servers company.

OOC, which one?  (would be nice to put an entry for your company
on the http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/users.html page).

> These servers demand high throughput from the storage.
> We applied XFS file system on our machines.
> 
> A video server reads a file in a sequential manner. So, if a

Do you write the file sequentially?  Buffered or direct writes?

> file extent size is not a factor of the stripe unit size a sequential
> read over a raid would break into several small pieces which
> is undesirable for performance.
> 
> I have been examining the bitmap of a file over Linux raid5.

I've found that, in combination with Jens Axboe's blktrace toolkit
to be very useful - if you have a sufficiently recent kernel, I'd
highly recommend you check out blktrace, it should help you alot.

(bmap == block map, theres no bitmap involved)

> According to the documentation XFS tries to align a file on
> stripe unit size.
> 
> What I have done is to fix the bitmap allocation method during
> the writing to be aligned by the stripe unit size.

Thats not quite what the patch does, FWIW - it does two things:
- forces allocations to be stripe unit sized (not aligned)
- and, er, removes some of the per-inode extsize hint code :)

> /d1/rt/kernels/linux-2.6.17-UNI/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> linux-2.6.17-UNI/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> --- /d1/rt/kernels/linux-2.6.17-UNI/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c  2006-06-18
> 01:49:35.000000000 +0000
> +++ linux-2.6.17-UNI/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c 2006-12-26 14:11:02.000000000 +0000
> @@ -441,8 +441,8 @@
>     if (unlikely(rt)) {
>         if (!(extsz = ip->i_d.di_extsize))
>             extsz = mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize;
> -   } else {
> -       extsz = ip->i_d.di_extsize;
> +   } else {
> +        extsz =  mp->m_dalign; // raz fix alignment to raid stripe unit
>     }

The real question is, why are your initial writes not being affected by
the code in xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb which rounds requests to a
stripe unit boundary?  Provided you are writing sequentially, you should
be seeing xfs_iomap_eof_want_preallocate return true, then later doing
stripe unit alignment in xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb (because prealloc
got set earlier) ... can you trace your requests through the routines
you've modified and find why this is _not_ happening?

cheers.

-- 
Nathan

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-24 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-24  6:34 [DISCUSS] xfs allocation bitmap method over linux raid Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)
2007-01-24 22:38 ` Nathan Scott [this message]
2007-01-28 10:32   ` Raz Ben-Jehuda(caro)
2007-01-28 21:49     ` Nathan Scott
2007-01-29 21:49       ` Nathan Scott
2007-01-28 23:52     ` David Chinner
2007-01-24 22:58 ` David Chinner

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=1169678294.18017.200.camel@edge \
    --to=nscott@aconex.com \
    --cc=raziebe@gmail.com \
    --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