Re: Performance problems with millions of inodes

Christoph Litauer
2008-06-26T07:28:15Z

Dave Chinner schrieb:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 04:43:23PM +0200, Christoph Litauer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> sorry if this has been asked before, I am new to this mailing list. I
>> didn't find any hints in the FAQ or by googling ...
>>
>> I have a backup server driving two kinds of backup software: bacula and
>> backuppc. bacula saves it's backups on raid1, backuppc on raid2
>> (different hardware, but both fast hardware raids).
>> I have massive performance problems with backuppc which I tracked down
>> to performance problems of the filesystem on raid2 (I think so). The
>> main difference between the two backup systems is that backuppc uses
>> millions of inodes for it's backup (in fact it duplicates the directory
>> structure of the backup client).
>>
>> raid1 consists of 91675 inodes, raid2 of 143646439. The filesystems were
>> created without any options. raid1 is about 7 TB, raid2 about 10TB. Both
>> filesystems are mounted with options
>> '(rw,noatime,nodiratime,ihashsize=65536)'.
>>
>> I used bonnie++ to benchmark both filesystems. Here are the results of
>> 'bonnie++ -u root -f -n 10:0:0:1000':
>>
>> raid1:
>> -------------------
>> Sequential Output: 82505 K/sec
>> Sequential Input : 102192 K/sec
>> Sequential file creation: 7184/sec
>> Random file creation : 17277/sec
>>
>> raid2:
>> -------------------
>> Sequential Output: 124802 K/sec
>> Sequential Input : 109158 K/sec
>> Sequential file creation: 123/sec
>> Random file creation : 138/sec
>>
>> As you can see, raid2's throughput is higher than raid1's. But the file
>> creation times are rather slow ...
>>
>> Maybe the 143 million inodes cause this effect?
>
> Certain will be. You've got about 3 AGs that are holding inodes, so
> that's probably 35M+ inodes per AG. With the way allocation works,
> it's probably doing a dual-traversal of the AGI btree to find a free
> inode "near" to the parent and that is consuming lots and lots of
> CPU time.

So, would more AGs improve performance? As backuppc is still in testing
state (for me) it would be no problem to create a new xfs filesystem
with a "better" configuration. I am afraid that the number of inodes
will increase very much if I backup more clients and filesystems. So,
what configuration would you recommend?

>
>> Any idea how to avoid it?
>
> I had a protoype patch back when I was at SGI than stopped this
> search when the search reached a radius that was no longer "near".
> This greatly reduced CPU time for allocation on large inode count
> AGs and hence create rates increased significantly.
>
> [Mark - IIRC that patch was in the miscellaneous patch tarball I
> left behind...]
>
> The only other way of dealing with this is to use inode64 so that
> inodes get spread across the entire filesystem instead of just a
> few AGs at the start of the filesystem. It's too late to change the
> existing inodes, but new inodes would get spread around....

Unfortunatly my backup server is a 32 bit system ...