linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lionel Bouton <lionel-subscription@bouton.name>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
Cc: "Ellis H. Wilson III" <ellisw@panasas.com>,
	Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: BTRFS Mount Delay Time Graph
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:08:46 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d4976bb-d78b-d6da-4a1e-31a2ef268597@bouton.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJCQCtSVdkfgr+X5DfhaBuMy-fWdWbT4UHJo8Vsuw4CtVBfN4g@mail.gmail.com>

Le 04/12/2018 à 03:52, Chris Murphy a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:04 PM Lionel Bouton
> <lionel-subscription@bouton.name> wrote:
>> Le 03/12/2018 à 20:56, Lionel Bouton a écrit :
>>> [...]
>>> Note : recently I tried upgrading from 4.9 to 4.14 kernels, various
>>> tuning of the io queue (switching between classic io-schedulers and
>>> blk-mq ones in the virtual machines) and BTRFS mount options
>>> (space_cache=v2,ssd_spread) but there wasn't any measurable improvement
>>> in mount time (I managed to reduce the mount of IO requests
>> Sent to quickly : I meant to write "managed to reduce by half the number
>> of IO write requests for the same amount of data writen"
>>
>>>  by half on
>>> one server in production though although more tests are needed to
>>> isolate the cause).
> Interesting. I wonder if it's ssd_spread or space_cache=v2 that
> reduces the writes by half, or by how much for each? That's a major
> reduction in writes, and suggests it might be possible for further
> optimization, to help mitigate the wandering trees impact.

Note, the other major changes were :
- 4.9 upgrade to 1.14,
- using multi-queue aware bfq instead of noop.

If BTRFS IO patterns in our case allow bfq to merge io-requests, this
could be another explanation.

Lionel


  reply	other threads:[~2018-12-04 15:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-03 18:20 BTRFS Mount Delay Time Graph Wilson, Ellis
2018-12-03 19:56 ` Lionel Bouton
2018-12-03 20:04   ` Lionel Bouton
2018-12-04  2:52     ` Chris Murphy
2018-12-04 15:08       ` Lionel Bouton [this message]
2018-12-03 22:22   ` Hans van Kranenburg
2018-12-04 16:45     ` [Mount time bug bounty?] was: " Lionel Bouton
2018-12-04  0:16 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-12-04 13:07 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-04 13:31   ` Qu Wenruo
2018-12-04 20:14   ` Wilson, Ellis
2018-12-05  6:55     ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-20  5:47       ` Qu Wenruo
2018-12-26  3:43         ` Btrfs_read_block_groups() delay (Was Re: BTRFS Mount Delay Time Graph) Qu Wenruo

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=2d4976bb-d78b-d6da-4a1e-31a2ef268597@bouton.name \
    --to=lionel-subscription@bouton.name \
    --cc=ellisw@panasas.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lists@colorremedies.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).