[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: statfs() / statvfs() syscall ballsup...
    Joel Becker wrote:
    > Platter level doesn't matter. Storage access level matters.
    > Node1 and Node2 have to see the same thing. As long as I am absolutely
    > sure that when Node1's write() returns, any subsequent read() on Node2
    > will see the change (normal barrier stuff, really), it doesn't matter
    > what happend on the Storage. The data could be in storage cache, on
    > platter, passed back to some other entity.

    That's two specifications. Please choose one!

    First you say the storage access level matters, then you say it
    doesn't matter, that the only important thing is any two nodes see
    each other's changes.

    Committing data to a certain level of storage, for the sake of
    _storing_ it, is trivially covered by fdatasync(). We won't talk
    about that any more.

    The other requirement is about barriers between nodes accessing data.

    On a single machine, your second specification means the data doesn't
    need to hit the disk at all. On a SAN, it means the data doesn't need
    to hit the SAN's storage - nor, in fact does the data have to be
    transferred over the SAN when you write it! Distributed cache
    coherency exists for that purpose.

    For example, let's imagine 32 processes, 8 per machine, and a giant
    shared disk. Pages in the database are regularly read and written by
    pairs of nodes and, because of the way you direct requests based on
    keys, certain pages tend to be accessed only by certain pairs of

    That means a significant proportion of the pages do _not_ need to be
    transmitted through the shared disk every time they are made visible
    to other nodes - because those page accesses are local to one _machine_
    for many transfers.

    That means O_DIRECT is using more storage bandwidth than you need to
    use. The waste is greatest on a single machine (i.e. infinity) but
    with multiple machines there is still waste and the amount depends on
    access patterns.

    You should be using cache coherency protocols between nodes - at the
    database level (which you very likely are, as performance would
    plummet without it) - and at the filesystem level.

    "Forcing a read" is *not* a required operation if you have a sound
    network filesystem or even network disk protocol. Merely reading a
    page will force the read, if another node has written to it - and
    *only* if that is necessary. Some of the distributed filesystems,
    like Sistina's, get this right I believe.

    If, however, your shared file does not maintain coherent views between
    different nodes, then you _do_ you need to force writes and force

    Your quality database will not waste storage bandwidth by doing
    _unnecessary_ reads, if the underlying storage isn't coherent, merely
    to see whether a page changed. For that, you should be communicating
    metadata between nodes that say "this page is now dirty; you will need
    to read it" and "ok" - along the lines of MESI.

    That is the worst case I can think of (i.e. the kernel filesystem/san
    driver doesn't do coherence so you have to do it in the database
    program), and indeed you do need the ability to flush read pages in
    that case. Ideally you want the ability to pass pages directly
    between nodes without requiring a storage commit, too.

    Linus' suggestion of "this data is stale" is ok. Another flag to
    remap_file_pages would work, too, saving a system call in some cases,
    but doing unwanted reads (sometimes you just want to invalidate) in
    some others. Btw, fadvise(POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) appears to offser this

    Using O_DIRECT always can be inefficient, because it commits things to
    storage which don't need to be committed so early or often, and
    because it moves data when it does not need to be moved, with the
    worst case being a small cluster of large machines or just one

    It's likely your expensive shared disk doesn't mind all those commits
    because of journalling NVRAM etc..

    To avoid wasting bandwidth to the shared disk associated processing
    costs you have to analyse the topology of node interconnections,
    specifically to avoid using O_DIRECT and/or unnecessary reads and
    writes when they aren't necessary (between local nodes).

    You need that anyway even with Linus' suggestion, because there's no
    way the kernel can know automatically whether you are doing a
    coherence operation between two local nodes or remote ones. Local
    filesystems look like a worthy exception, but even those are iffy if
    there's a remote client accessing it over a network filesystem as well
    as local nodes synchronising over it. It has to be an unexported
    local filesystem, and the kernel doesn't even know that, because of
    userspace servers like Samba.


    That long discussion leads to this:

    The best in theory is a network-coherent filesystem. It knows the
    topology and it can implement the optimal strategy.

    Without one of those, it is necessary to know the topology between
    nodes to get optimal performance for any method (i.e. minimum pages
    transferred around, minimum operations etc.). This is true of using
    O_DIRECT or Linus' page cache manipulations.

    O_DIRECT works, but causes unnecessary storage commitment when all you
    need is synchronisation.

    Page cache manipulation may already be possible using fdatasync +
    MADV_DONTNEED + POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED, however that isn't optimal
    either, because:

    Both of those mechanisms do not provide a way to transfer a dirty page
    from one node to another without (a) committing to storage; or (b)
    copying the data at the receiver. O_DIRECT does the commit (write at
    one node; read at the other), but is zero-copy at the receiver, as
    mapped files are generally. Without O_DIRECT, you'd have to use
    application level socket<->socket communication, and there is as yet
    no zero-copy receive. Zero-copy UDP receive or similar is needed to
    get the best from this.


    Only a coherent distributed filesystem actually minimises the amount
    of file data transferred and copied, and automatically too.

    All other suggestions so far have weaknesses in this regard.

    Although the page cache manipulation methods could minimise the
    transfers and copies if zero-copy socket receive was available, it is
    a set of mechanisms that look like it would, after it's implemented in
    the application, still be slower than a coherent filesystem just
    because the latter can do the combination of manipulations etc. more
    easily; on the other hand, resolution of cache coherency by a
    filesystem would incur more page faults than doing it at the
    application level. So it is not absolutely clear which can be made
    faster with lots of attention.

    The end :)

    Thanks for getting this far...
    -- Jamie
    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: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.028 / U:1.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site