[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Repair-driven file system design (was Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea)
    On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:34:42PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
    > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
    > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > >
    > > > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach.
    > >
    > > Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem.....
    > Agreed, the chunkfs design is only one way to implement repair-driven
    > file system design - designing your file system to make file system
    > check and repair fast and easy. I've written a paper on this idea,
    > which includes some interesting projections estimating that fsck will
    > take 10 times as long on the 2013 equivalent of a 2006 file system,
    > due entirely to changes in disk hardware.

    That's assuming that repair doesn't get any more efficient. ;)

    > So if your server currently
    > takes 2 hours to fsck, an equivalent server in 2013 will take about 20
    > hours. Eek! Paper here:
    > While I'm working on chunkfs, I also think that all file systems
    > should strive for repair-driven design. XFS has already made big
    > strides in this area (multi-threading fsck for multi-disk file
    > systems, for example) and I'm excited to see what comes next.

    Two steps forward, one step back.

    We found that our original approach to multithreading doesn't always
    work, and doesn't work at all for single disks. Under some test cases,
    it goes *much* slower due to increased seeking of the disks.

    This patch from the folk at Agami:

    used a different threading approach to speeding up the repair
    process - it basically did object path walking in separate threads
    to prime the block device page cache so that when the real
    repair thread needed the block it came from the blockdev cache
    rather than from disk.

    This sped up several phases of the repair process because of
    re-reads needed in the different phases. What we found interesting
    about this approach is that it showed that prefetching gave as good
    or better results than simple parallelisation with a rudimentary
    caching system. In most cases it was superior (lower runtime) to
    the existing multithreaded xfs_repair.

    However, the Agami object based prefetch does not speed up phase 3
    on a single disk - like strided AG parallelism it increases disk
    seeks and, as we discovered, causes lots of little backwards seeks
    to occur. It also performs very poorly when there is not enough
    memory to cache sufficient objects in the block dev cache (whose
    size cannot be controlled). It sped things up by using prefetch to
    speed up (repeated) I/O, not by using intelligent caching.....

    However, this patch has been very instructive on how we could
    further improve the threading of xfs_repair - intelligent prefetch
    is better than simple parallelism (from the Agami patch), caching is
    far better than rereading (from the SGI repair level caching) and
    that prefetching complements simple parallelism on volumes that can
    take advantage of it.

    We've ended up combining a threaded, two phase object walking
    prefetch with spatial analysis of the inode and object layouts
    and integration into a smarter internal cache. This cache is now
    similar to the xfs_buf cache in the kernel and uses direct I/O
    so if you have enough memory you only need to read objects from
    disk once.

    Spatial analysis of the metadata is used to determine the relative
    density of the metadata in an area of disk before we read it. Using
    a density function, we determine if we want to do lots of small I/Os
    or one large I/O to read the entire region in one go and then split
    it up in memory. Hence as metadata density increases, the number of
    I/Os decrease and we pull enough data in to (hopefully) keep the
    CPUs busy.

    We still walk objects, but any blocks behind where we are currently
    reading go into a secondary I/O queue to be issued later. Hence we
    keep moving in one direction across the disk. Once the first pass is
    complete, we then do the same analysis on the secondary list and run
    that I/O all in a single pass across the disk.

    This is effectively a result of observing that repair is typically seek
    bound and only using 2-3MB/s of the bandwidth a disk has to offer.
    Where metadata density is high, we are now seeing luns max out on
    bandwidth rather than being seek bound. Effectively we are hiding
    latency by using more bandwidth and that is a good tradeoff to
    make for a seek bound app....

    The result of this is that even on single disks the reading of all
    the metadata goes faster with this multithreaded prefetch model. A
    full 250GB SATA disk with a clean filesystem containing ~1.6 million
    inodes is now taking less than 5 minutes to repair. A 5.5TB RAID5
    volume with 30 million inodes is now taking about 4.5 minutes to
    repair instead of 20 minutes. We're currently creating a
    multi-hundred million inode filesystem to determine scalability to
    the current bleeding edge.

    One thing this makes me consider is changing the way inodes and
    metadata get laid out in XFS - clumping metadata together will lead
    to better scan times for repair because of the density increase.
    Dualfs has already proven that this can be good for performance when
    done correctly; I think it also has merit for improving repair times
    substantially as well.

    FWIW, I've already told Barry he's going to have to write a
    white paper about all this once he's finished.....


    Dave Chinner
    Principal Engineer
    SGI Australian Software Group
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-17 03:13    [W:0.027 / U:7.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site