Re: About dm-integrity layer and fsync

[Patrick Dung <patdung100@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1787 bytes --]

OK, I see. Thanks Mikulas for the explanation.

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 5:39 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, Patrick Dung wrote:
>
> > Thanks for reply. After performing an additional testing with SSD. I
> have more questions.
> >
> > Firstly, about the additional testing with SSD:
> > I tested it with SSD (in Linux software raid level 10 setup). The result
> shown using dm-integrity is faster than using XFS directly. For using
> dm-integrity, fio shows
> > lots of I/O merges by the scheduler. Please find the attachment for the
> result.
> >
> > Finally, please find the questions below:
> > 1) So after the dm-integrity journal is written to the actual back end
> storage (hard drive), then fsync would then report completed?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2) To my understanding, for using dm-integrity with journal mode. Data
> has to written into the storage device twice (one part is the dm-integrity
> journal, the other
> > one is the actual data). For the fio test, the data should be random and
> sustained for 60 seconds. But using dm-integrity with journal mode is still
> faster.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Patrick
>
> With ioengine=sync, fio sends one I/O, waits for it to finish, send
> another I/O, wait for it to finish, etc.
>
> With dm-integrity, I/Os will be written to the journal (that is held in
> memory, no disk I/O is done), and when fio does the sync(), fsync() or
> fdatasync() syscall, the journal is written to the disk. After the journal
> is flushed, the blocks are written concurrently to the disk locations.
>
> The SSD has better performance for concurrent write then for
> block-by-block write, so that's why you see performance improvement with
> dm-integrity.
>
> Mikulas
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2168 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]