Date:   Sat, 23 Sep 2017 11:12:34 -0600
From:   Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
To:     Jaco Kroon <jaco@....co.za>
Cc:     linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: fragmentation optimization

On Sep 23, 2017, at 1:49 AM, Jaco Kroon <jaco@....co.za> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted, Everyone,
> 
> During our last discussions you mentioned the following (2017/08/16 5:06 SAST/GMT+2):
> 
> "One other thought.  There is an ext4 block allocator optimization
> "feature" which is biting us here.  At the moment we have an
> optimization where if there is small "hole" in the logical block
> number space, we leave a "hole" in the physical blocks allocated to
> the file."
> 
> You proceeded to provide the example regarding writing of object files as per binutils (ld specifically).
> 
> As per the data I provided you previously rsync (with --sparse) is generating a lot of "holes" for us due to this.  As a result I end up with a rather insane amount of fragmentation:
> 
> Blocksize: 4096 bytes
> Total blocks: 13153337344
> Free blocks: 1272662587 (9.7%)
> 
> Min. free extent: 4 KB
> Max. free extent: 17304 KB
> Avg. free extent: 44 KB
> Num. free extent: 68868260
> 
> HISTOGRAM OF FREE EXTENT SIZES:
> Extent Size Range :  Free extents   Free Blocks  Percent
>    4K...    8K-  :      28472490      28472490    2.24%
>    8K...   16K-  :      27005860      55030426    4.32%
>   16K...   32K-  :       2595993      14333888    1.13%
>   32K...   64K-  :       2888720      32441623    2.55%
>   64K...  128K-  :       2745121      62071861    4.88%
>  128K...  256K-  :       2303439     103166554    8.11%
>  256K...  512K-  :       1518463     134776388   10.59%
>  512K... 1024K-  :        902691     163108612   12.82%
>    1M...    2M-  :        314858     105445496    8.29%
>    2M...    4M-  :         97174      64620009    5.08%
>    4M...    8M-  :         22501      28760501    2.26%
>    8M...   16M-  :           945       2069807    0.16%
>   16M...   32M-  :             5         21155    0.00%
> 
> Based on the behavior I notice by watching how rsync works[1] I greatly suspect that writes are sequential from start of file to end of file.  Regarding the above "feature" you further proceeded to mention:
> 
> "However, it obviously doesn't do the right thing for rsync --sparse,
> and these days, thanks to delayed allocation, so long as binutils can
> finish writing the blocks within 30 seconds, it doesn't matter if GNU
> ld writes the blocks in a completely random order, since we will only
> attempt to do the writeback to the disk after all of the holes in the
> .o file have been filled in.  So perhaps we should turn off this ext4
> block allocator optimization if delayed allocation is enabled (which
> is the default these days)."
> 
> You mentioned a few pros and cons of this approach as well, and also mentioned that it won't help my existing filesystem, however, I suspect it might in combination with a e4defrag sweep (which if it takes a few weeks in the background that's fine by me).  Also, I suspect disabling this might help avoid future holes, and since persistence of files varies (from a week to a year) I suspect it may help to over time slowly improve performance.
> 
> I'm also relatively comfortable to make the 30s write limit even longer (as you pointed out the files causing the problems are typically 300GB+ even though on average my files are very small), permitting that I won't introduce additional file-system corruption risk.  Also keeping in mind that I run anything from 10 to 20 concurrent rsync instances at any point in time.

The 30s limit is imposed by the VFS, which begins flushing dirty data pages
from memory if they are old, if some other mechanism hasn't done it sooner.

> I would like to attempt such a patch, so if you (or someone else) could possibly point me in an appropriate direction of where to start work on this I would really appreciate the help.
> 
> Another approach for me may be to simply switch off --sparse since especially now I'm unsure of it's benefit.  I'm guessing that I could do a sweep of all inodes to determine how much space is really being saved by this.

You can do this on a per-file basis with the "filefrag" utility to determine how
many extents the file is written in.  Anything reporting only 1 extent can be
ignored since it can't get better. Even on large files there will be multiple
extents (maximum extent size is 128MB, but may be limited to ~122MB depending on
formatting options).  That said, anything larger than ~4MB doesn't improve the
I/O performance in any significant way because the HDD seek rate 100/sec * 4MB/s
exceeds the disk bandwidth.

The other option is the "fsstats" utility (https://github.com/adilger/fsstats
though I didn't write it) will scan the whole filesystem/tree and report all
kinds of useful stats, but most importantly how many files are sparse.


> [1] My observed behaviour when syncing a file (without --inplace which is in my opinion a bad idea in general unless you're severely space constrained, and then I honestly don't know how this situation would be affected) is that rsync will create a new file, and then the file size of this file will grow slowly (not, not disk usage, but size as reported by ls) until it reaches the file size of the new file, and at this point rsync will use rename(2) to replace the old file with the new one (which is the right approach).

The reason the size is growing, but not the blocks count, is because of delayed
allocation.  The ext4 code will keep the dirty pages only in memory until they
need to be written (due to age or memory pressure), to better determine what to
allocate on disk.  This lets it fit small files into small free chunks on disk,
and large files get (multiple) large free chunks of disk.

Cheers, Andreas






Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (196 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists