lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Btrfs: broken file system design (was Unbound(?) internal fragmentation in Btrfs)
    Chris Mason wrote:
    > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:32:16PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
    >
    >> Mat wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Edward Shishkin <edward@redhat.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hello everyone.
    >>>>
    >>>> I was asked to review/evaluate Btrfs for using in enterprise
    >>>> systems and the below are my first impressions (linux-2.6.33).
    >>>>
    >>>> The first test I have made was filling an empty 659M (/dev/sdb2)
    >>>> btrfs partition (mounted to /mnt) with 2K files:
    >>>>
    >>>> # for i in $(seq 1000000); \
    >>>> do dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/file_$i bs=2048 count=1; done
    >>>> (terminated after getting "No space left on device" reports).
    >>>>
    >>>> # ls /mnt | wc -l
    >>>> 59480
    >>>>
    >>>> So, I got the "dirty" utilization 59480*2048 / (659*1024*1024) = 0.17,
    >>>> and the first obvious question is "hey, where are other 83% of my
    >>>> disk space???" I looked at the btrfs storage tree (fs_tree) and was
    >>>> shocked with the situation on the leaf level. The Appendix B shows
    >>>> 5 adjacent btrfs leafs, which have the same parent.
    >>>>
    >>>> For example, look at the leaf 29425664: "items 1 free space 3892"
    >>>> (of 4096!!). Note, that this "free" space (3892) is _dead_: any
    >>>> attempts to write to the file system will result in "No space left
    >>>> on device".
    >>>>
    >
    > There are two easy ways to fix this problem. Turn off the inline
    > extents (max_inline=0) or allow splitting of the inline extents. I
    > didn't put in the splitting simply because the complexity was high while
    > the benefits were low (in comparison with just turning off the inline
    > extents).
    >

    Hello, Chris. Thanks for response!
    I afraid that both ways won't fix the problem. Look at this leaf:

    [...]
    leaf 29425664 items 1 free space 3892 generation 8 owner 5
    fs uuid 50268d9d-2a53-4f4d-b3a3-4fbff74dd956
    chunk uuid 963ba49a-bb2b-48a3-9b35-520d857aade6
    item 0 key (320 XATTR_ITEM 3817753667) itemoff 3917 itemsize 78
    location key (0 UNKNOWN 0) type 8
    namelen 16 datalen 32 name: security.selinux
    [...]

    There is no inline extents, and what are you going to split here?
    All leafs must be at least a half filled, otherwise we loose all
    boundaries, which provides non-zero utilization..

    Any ideas?

    Thanks,
    Edward.

    >
    >> It must be a highly unexpected and difficult question for file system
    >> developers: "how efficiently does your file system manage disk space"?
    >>
    >> In the meanwhile I confirm that Btrfs design is completely broken:
    >> records stored in the B-tree differ greatly from each other (it is
    >> unacceptable!), and the balancing algorithms have been modified in
    >> insane manner. All these factors has led to loss of *all* boundaries
    >> holding internal fragmentation and to exhaustive waste of disk space
    >> (and memory!) in spite of the property "scaling in their ability to
    >> address large storage".
    >>
    >> This is not a large storage, this is a "scalable sieve": you can not
    >> rely on finding there some given amount of water even after infinite
    >> increasing the size of the sieve (read escalating the pool of Btrfs
    >> devices).
    >>
    >> It seems that nobody have reviewed Btrfs before its inclusion to the
    >> mainline. I have only found a pair of recommendations with a common
    >> idea that Btrfs maintainer is "not a crazy man". Plus a number of
    >> papers which admire with the "Btrfs phenomena". Sigh.
    >>
    >> Well, let's decide what can we do in current situation..
    >> The first obvious point here is that we *can not* put such file system
    >> to production. Just because it doesn't provide any guarantees for our
    >> users regarding disk space utilization.
    >>
    >
    > Are you basing all of this on inline extents? The other extents of
    > variable size are more flexible (taking up the room in the leaf), but
    > they can also easy be split during balancing.
    >
    > -chris
    >
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-06-18 17:09    [W:0.030 / U:58.808 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site