xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount

To: Mark Lord <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount
From: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:40:31 -0500 (EST)
Cc: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4D418B57.1000501@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4D40C8D1.8090202@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110127033011.GH21311@dastard> <4D40EB2F.2050809@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D418B57.1000501@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)


On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Mark Lord wrote:

On 11-01-27 12:30 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Mark Lord put forth on 1/26/2011 9:49 PM:

agcount=7453

That's probably a bit high Mark, and very possibly the cause of your problems.
:)  Unless the disk array backing this filesystem has something like 400-800
striped disk drives.  You said it's a single 2TB drive right?

The default agcount for a single drive filesystem is 4 allocation groups.  For
mdraid (of any number of disks/configuration) it's 16 allocation groups.

Why/how did you end up with 7452 allocation groups?  That can definitely cause
some performance issues due to massively excessive head seeking, and possibly
all manner of weirdness.

This is great info, exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for!

The filesystem is about a year old now, and I probably used agsize=nnnnn
when creating it or something.

So if this resulted in what you consider to be many MANY too MANY ags,
then I can imagine the first new file write wanting to go out and read
in all of the ag data to determine the "best fit" or something.
Which might explain some of the delay.

Once I get the new 2TB drive, I'll re-run mkfs.xfs and then copy everything
over onto a fresh xfs filesystem.

Can you recommend a good set of mkfs.xfs parameters to suit the characteristics
of this system?  Eg. Only a few thousand active inodes, and nearly all files are
in the 600MB -> 20GB size range.  The usage pattern it must handle is up to
six concurrent streaming writes at the same time as up to three streaming reads,
with no significant delays permitted on the reads.

That's the kind of workload that I find XFS handles nicely,
and EXT4 has given me trouble with in the past.

Thanks


Hi Mark,

I did a load of benchmarks a long time ago testing every mkfs.xfs option there was, and I found that most of the time (if not all), the defaults were the best.

Justin.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>