* Re: xfs fstrim and quota
[not found] <c3cbf69c52f0e89631c796016449bbe3@berlin.de>
@ 2018-04-24 8:28 ` michael.arndt
2018-04-24 11:35 ` Brian Foster
2018-04-24 16:10 ` xfs fstrim and quota Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: michael.arndt @ 2018-04-24 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-xfs
Hello *
Will fstrim operations for a thin provisioning storage and xfs quota
conflict with each other ?
If i understand fstrim code correctly, in case of xfs / thin
provisioning storage it tells xfs to release unused blocks.
I have read indications that blocks are marked to the underlying storage
as freed by zeroing them out.
Is the "write zeros" correct information, or will be commands like scsi
unmap or FITRIM be sent to the storage ?
I found many exact references to fstrim on SSD, but no technical
description on which operation is implemented for thin provisioning
storages.
TIA
Micha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs fstrim and quota
2018-04-24 8:28 ` xfs fstrim and quota michael.arndt
@ 2018-04-24 11:35 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-14 10:51 ` xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ? Michael Arndt
2018-04-24 16:10 ` xfs fstrim and quota Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Brian Foster @ 2018-04-24 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: michael.arndt; +Cc: linux-xfs
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:28:34AM +0200, michael.arndt@berlin.de wrote:
> Hello *
>
> Will fstrim operations for a thin provisioning storage and xfs quota
> conflict with each other ?
>
How so? fstrim should basically inform the underlying device of blocks
in the filesystem that are free. Free blocks in the fs aren't accounted
to any quota by definition, so there shouldn't be a conflict.
> If i understand fstrim code correctly, in case of xfs / thin provisioning
> storage it tells xfs to release unused blocks.
>
Right... so an underlying thin block device can release blocks that are
unused in the fs.
> I have read indications that blocks are marked to the underlying storage as
> freed by zeroing them out.
>
> Is the "write zeros" correct information, or will be commands like scsi
> unmap or FITRIM be sent to the storage ?
>
The fs invokes the block layer discard mechanism. I can't really speak
to how this translates into device commands. My understanding is that a
dm-thin device would/could act on this to release associated blocks to
the pool, otherwise the behavior may depend on the physical
characteristics of the underlying device (i.e., SSD, non-dm thin
devices, etc.), supported commands or whatnot. Perhaps somebody else can
chime in on that or otherwise this might be a better question for the
block layer folks.
Brian
> I found many exact references to fstrim on SSD, but no technical description
> on which operation is implemented for thin provisioning storages.
>
> TIA
> Micha
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs fstrim and quota
2018-04-24 8:28 ` xfs fstrim and quota michael.arndt
2018-04-24 11:35 ` Brian Foster
@ 2018-04-24 16:10 ` Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2018-04-24 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: michael.arndt, linux-xfs
On 4/24/18 2:28 AM, michael.arndt@berlin.de wrote:
> Hello *
>
> Will fstrim operations for a thin provisioning storage and xfs quota conflict with each other ?
>
> If i understand fstrim code correctly, in case of xfs / thin provisioning storage it tells xfs to release unused blocks.
>
> I have read indications that blocks are marked to the underlying storage as freed by zeroing them out.
Brian addressed most of this, I think, but the short answer is that no, fstrim
will in no way affect xfs quota. Everything happening as a result of fstrim
happens well below what the quota subsystem even knows about. Even if discard
happens via WRITE_SAME, that's not anything quota is aware of.
Short answer is: There is no conflict.
Thanks,
-Eric
> Is the "write zeros" correct information, or will be commands like scsi unmap or FITRIM be sent to the storage ?
>
> I found many exact references to fstrim on SSD, but no technical description on which operation is implemented for thin provisioning storages.
>
> TIA
> Micha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ?
2018-04-24 11:35 ` Brian Foster
@ 2018-11-14 10:51 ` Michael Arndt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Arndt @ 2018-11-14 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-xfs
Hello *,
Problem: /bin/rm extremely slow on a major xfs (SSD based) HPC Storage
slow == 90 seconds for unlink of an empty file without any extents
strace says: time completely used for unlink call
Question; Is there any issue resolution ?
Information re XFS Version and OS at end of this Post
Example of issue:
[root@atgrzsl3150 DOM_0]# xfs_bmap -a .AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock
.AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock: no extents
[root@atgrzsl3150 DOM_0]# ls -laFtr .AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock
-rw-rw-r-- 1 user group 0 Oct 22 14:14 .AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock
strace -T -tt /bin/rm .AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock
11:41:11.621005 execve("/bin/rm", ["/bin/rm", ".AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock"], [/* 31 vars */]) = 0 <0.000169>
11:41:11.621312 brk(NULL) = 0x6f5000 <0.000023>
11:41:11.621378 mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0x7f4d96017000 <0.000058>
…….
11:41:11.622485 newfstatat(AT_FDCWD, ".AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0664, st_size=0, ...}, AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW) = 0 <0.000009>
11:41:11.622522 geteuid() = 0 <0.000009>
-> 11:41:11.622546 unlinkat(AT_FDCWD, ".AN_720.0000122.fl3step_0.lock", 0) = 0 <89.612833>
-> 11:42:41.235428 lseek(0, 0, SEEK_CUR) = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek) <0.000065>
11:42:41.235548 close(0) = 0 <0.000052>
11:42:41.235689 close(1) = 0 <0.000011>
11:42:41.235738 close(2) = 0 <0.000055>
11:42:41.235830 exit_group(0) = ?
11:42:41.235941 +++ exited with 0 +++
xfs_info /dev/mapper/vg_calc2-calc2
meta-data=/dev/mapper/vg_calc2-calc2 isize=512 agcount=50, agsize=268435448 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=1 finobt=0 spinodes=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=13421711360, imaxpct=20
= sunit=8 swidth=40 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=1
log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=521728, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=8 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
Issue on:
xfsprogs-4.5.0-18.el7.x86_64
xfsdump-3.1.7-1.el7.x86_64
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.4 (Maipo)
df -kh .
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/mapper/vg_calc2 50T 20T 31T 40% /calc2
Layers:
SSD based commercial Storage exports many small LUN’s -> LUN#s striped via LVM2 for speed, xfs with default opts on top of LVM
Currently no discard Option for mount and no fstrim manually called
Mount Options used
/dev/mapper/vg_calc2-calc2 /calc2 xfs noatime,delaylog,nobarrier,nodiratime,logbsize=256k,logbufs=8 0 0
thanks for any tip / hint / question
Micha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ?
2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
@ 2018-11-15 17:35 ` Brian Foster
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Brian Foster @ 2018-11-15 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Arndt; +Cc: linux-xfs
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:07:46PM +0100, Michael Arndt wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Info, supporting your remark about VFS layer:
>
> I did a reboot of cluster headnode and after that the remove was „fast“ meanig the typical millsecond /single file to seconds / removal of whole trees.
>
> What does your intuition say, what could be suspected in the VFS layer / lvm2 layer or below to trigger this problem
> ( just to collect ideas, where to search). ?
>
If the problem only occurs after a period of time like this, I suppose
that could suggest some kind of cache effect is contributing to it. You
could see if an 'echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches' clears the problem
once it occurs, for example, but note that will clear all cached
dentries/inodes on the system.
I'm not familiar enough with the VFS code and associated caching to
speculate much beyond that. Other things that might be interesting are
whether other operations on said file take the same amount of time
(i.e., an mv before an rm?), whether this is a common filename pattern
that sees a lot of create/delete operations (perhaps polluting a lookup
cache with unlinked entries? i.e., does changing the filename have any
effect?), whether a relocation of the file to another directory changes
anything, whether other operations in the same dir on unrelated files
show the same problem, etc.
Your best bet is probably to collect as much trace data as you can and
then possibly report this to the general linux-fsdevel mailing list.
Note that if you're using a distro kernel, it might be more appropriate
to report an issue with your distro vendor than an upstream list.
Brian
> Caused by the fact, that the problem was seen also two times before, the issue will reappear after some time.
>
> Off topic: is the mount option delaylog still functional or obsoleted, because already default behaviour ?
>
> best
> Micha
> thx for extremely friendly help
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ?
2018-11-15 15:38 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
@ 2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
2018-11-15 17:35 ` Brian Foster
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Arndt @ 2018-11-15 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs
Brian,
Info, supporting your remark about VFS layer:
I did a reboot of cluster headnode and after that the remove was „fast“ meanig the typical millsecond /single file to seconds / removal of whole trees.
What does your intuition say, what could be suspected in the VFS layer / lvm2 layer or below to trigger this problem
( just to collect ideas, where to search). ?
Caused by the fact, that the problem was seen also two times before, the issue will reappear after some time.
Off topic: is the mount option delaylog still functional or obsoleted, because already default behaviour ?
best
Micha
thx for extremely friendly help
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ?
2018-11-15 15:38 ` Brian Foster
@ 2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Arndt @ 2018-11-15 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs
Brian,
Info, supporting your remark about VFS layer:
I did a reboot of cluster headnode and after that the remove was „fast“ meanig the typical millsecond /single file to seconds / removal of whole trees.
What does your intuition say, what could be suspected in the VFS layer / lvm2 layer or below to trigger this problem
( just to collect ideas, where to search). ?
Caused by the fact, that the problem was seen also two times before, the issue will reappear after some time.
Off topic: is the mount option delaylog still functional or obsoleted, because already default behaviour ?
best
Micha
thx for extremely friendly help
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-16 3:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <c3cbf69c52f0e89631c796016449bbe3@berlin.de>
2018-04-24 8:28 ` xfs fstrim and quota michael.arndt
2018-04-24 11:35 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-14 10:51 ` xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ? Michael Arndt
2018-04-24 16:10 ` xfs fstrim and quota Eric Sandeen
[not found] <3927644F-734A-4A2A-BACB-DE44CBC812EB@berlin.de>
2018-11-14 11:42 ` Fwd: xfs remove / unlink extremely slow ? Michael Arndt
2018-11-14 14:45 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-15 15:38 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
2018-11-15 17:07 ` Michael Arndt
2018-11-15 17:35 ` Brian Foster
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).