linux-kernel - Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1101271040000.31246@p34.internal.lan>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:40:31 -0500 (EST)
From:	Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@...idpixels.com>
To:	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>
cc:	Stan Hoeppner <stan@...dwarefreak.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alex Elder <aelder@....com>
Subject: Re: xfs: very slow after mount, very slow at umount



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.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/