From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Upgrade xfs filesystem to reflink support?
Date: Mon, 9 May 2022 11:20:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220509182043.GW27195@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjBR_Z-j_g8teFBih7XPiUCtELgf=k8=_ye84J00ro+RA@mail.gmail.com>
[drop my oracle email from cc, outlook sux]
On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 10:50:20AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Hi Darrick and Dave,
>
> I might have asked this back when reflink was introduced, but cannot
> find the question nor answer.
>
> Is there any a priori NACK or exceptional challenges w.r.t implementing
> upgrade of xfs to reflink support?
No, just lack of immediate user demand + time to develop and merge code
+ time to QA the whole mess to make sure it doesn't introduce any
messes.
> We have several customers with xfs formatted pre reflink that we would
> like to consider
> upgrading.
>
> Back in the time of reflink circa v4.9 there were few xfs features
> that could be
> upgraded, but nowadays, there are several features that could be upgraded.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the target audience for this upgrade would be
> xfs formatted
> with xfsprogs 4.17 (defaults).
> I realize that journal size may have been smaller at that time (I need to check)
> which may be a source of additional problems,
Yes. We've found in practice that logsize < 100MB produce serious
scalability problems and increase deadlock opportunities on such old
kernels. The 64MB floor we just put in for xfsprogs 5.15 was a good
enough downwards estimate assuming that most people will end up on 5.19+
kernels in the (very) long run.
> but hopefully, some of your work
> to do a diet for journal credits for reflink could perhaps mitigate
> that issue(?).
That work reduces the internal transaction size but leaves the existing
minimum log size standards intact.
> Shall I take a swing at it?
It's already written:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfsprogs-dev.git/log/?h=upgrade-older-features
I think the upcoming nrext64 xfsprogs patches took in the first patch in
that series.
Question: Now that mkfs has a min logsize of 64MB, should we refuse
upgrades for any filesystem with logsize < 64MB?
--D
> Thanks,
> Amir.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-09 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-09 7:50 [QUESTION] Upgrade xfs filesystem to reflink support? Amir Goldstein
2022-05-09 18:20 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2022-05-10 6:21 ` Amir Goldstein
2022-05-10 19:02 ` Darrick J. Wong
2022-05-10 22:05 ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-11 15:46 ` Brian Foster
2022-05-11 22:24 ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-16 13:35 ` Brian Foster
2022-05-17 9:30 ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-19 16:07 ` Brian Foster
2022-05-19 23:05 ` Dave Chinner
2022-05-10 9:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-05-10 18:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
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=20220509182043.GW27195@magnolia \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@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