All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@hardwarefreak.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
	"C. Morgan Hamill" <chamill@wesleyan.edu>, xfs <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Question regarding XFS on LVM over hardware RAID.
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 16:40:51 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52E98373.4070301@hardwarefreak.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52E91923.4070706@sandeen.net>

On 1/29/2014 9:07 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/29/14, 8:26 AM, C. Morgan Hamill wrote:
>> Howdy folks,
>>
>> I understand that XFS have stripe unit and width configured according to
>> the underlying RAID device when using LVM, but I was wondering if this
>> is still the case when a given XFS-formatted logical volume takes up
>> only part of the available space on the RAID.  In particular, I could
>> imagine that stripe width would need to be modified proportionally with
>> the decrease in filesystem size.  My intuition says that's false, but
>> I wanted to check with folks who know for sure.
> 
> The stripe unit and width are units of geometry of the underlying
> storage; a filesystem will span some number of stripe units, depending
> on its size.
> 
> So no, the filesystem's notion of stripe geometry does not change
> with the filesystem size.
> 
> You do want to make sure that stripe geometry is correct and aligned
> from top to bottom.

This is correct if indeed stripe alignment is beneficial to the
workload.  But not all workloads benefit from stripe alignment.  Some
may perform worse when XFS is stripe aligned to the underlying storage.

For instance, when a workload performs lots of allocations that are
significantly smaller than the RAID stripe width.  Here you end up with
a small file allocated at the start of each stripe and the rest of the
stripe left empty.  This can create an IO hot spot on the first one or
two drives in the array, and the others may sit idle.  This obviously
has a negative impact on throughput with such a workload.

Thus for a workload that performs lots of predominantly small
allocations, it is best to not align during mkfs.xfs with hardware RAID
that doesn't provide geometry to Linux.  If the underlying storage
device does do so, or if it is is a striped md/RAID device, you will
want to manually specify 4K alignment, as mkfs.xfs will auto align to md
geometry.

-- 
Stan

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

      parent reply	other threads:[~2014-01-29 22:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-29 14:26 Question regarding XFS on LVM over hardware RAID C. Morgan Hamill
2014-01-29 15:07 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-01-29 19:11   ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-01-29 23:55     ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-01-30 14:28       ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-01-30 20:28         ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-31  5:58           ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-01-31 21:14             ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-01 21:06               ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-02 21:21                 ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-03 16:12                   ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-03 21:41                     ` Dave Chinner
2014-02-04  8:00                       ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-18 19:44                         ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-18 23:07                           ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-20 18:31                             ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-21  3:33                               ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-21  8:57                                 ` Emmanuel Florac
2014-02-22  2:21                                   ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-25 17:04                                     ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-25 17:17                                       ` Emmanuel Florac
2014-02-25 20:08                                       ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-26 14:19                                         ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-26 17:49                                           ` Stan Hoeppner
2014-02-21 19:17                                 ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-02-03 16:07                 ` C. Morgan Hamill
2014-01-29 22:40   ` Stan Hoeppner [this message]

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=52E98373.4070301@hardwarefreak.com \
    --to=stan@hardwarefreak.com \
    --cc=chamill@wesleyan.edu \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.