On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:42:47PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 10:42:46AM -0400, Paul Anderson wrote:
>> > This morning, I had a symptom of a I/O throughput problem in which
>> > dirty pages appeared to be taking a long time to write to disk.
>> > The system is a large x64 192GiB dell 810 server running 184.108.40.206 from
>> > kernel.org - the basic workload was data intensive - concurrent large
>> > NFS (with high metadata/low filesize), rsync/lftp (with low
>> > metadata/high file size) all working in a 200TiB XFS volume on a
>> > software MD raid0 on top of 7 software MD raid6, each w/18 drives. I
>> > had mounted the filesystem with inode64,largeio,logbufs=8,noatime.
>> A few comments on the setup before trying to analze what's going on in
>> detail. I'd absolutely recommend an external log device for this setup,
>> that is buy another two fast but small disks, or take two existing ones
>> and use a RAID 1 for the external log device. This will speed up
>> anything log intensive, which both NFS, and resync workloads are lot.
>> Second thing if you can split the workloads into multiple volumes if you
>> have two such different workloads, so thay they don't interfear with
>> each other.
>> Second a RAID0 on top of RAID6 volumes sounds like a pretty worst case
>> for almost any type of I/O. You end up doing even relatively small I/O
>> to all of the disks in the worst case. I think you'd be much better
>> off with a simple linear concatenation of the RAID6 devices, even if you
>> can split them into multiple filesystems
>> > The specific symptom was that 'sync' hung, a dpkg command hung
>> > (presumably trying to issue fsync), and experimenting with "killall
>> > -STOP" or "kill -STOP" of the workload jobs didn't let the system
>> > drain I/O enough to finish the sync. I probably did not wait long
>> > enough, however.
>> It really sounds like you're simply killloing the MD setup with a
>> log of log I/O that does to all the devices.
> And this is one of the reasons why I originally suggested that
> storage at this scale really should be using hardware RAID with
> large amounts of BBWC to isolate the backend from such problematic
> IO patterns.
> Dave Chinner
Good HW RAID cards are on order - seems to be backordered at least a
few weeks now at CDW. Got the batteries immediately.
That will give more options for test and deployment.
Not sure what I can do about the log - man page says xfs_growfs
doesn't implement log moving. I can rebuild the filesystems, but for
the one mentioned in this theread, this will take a long time.
I'm guessing we'll need to split out the workload - aside from the
differences in file size and use patterns, they also have
fundamentally different values (the high metadata dataset happens to
be high value relative to the low metadata/large file dataset).