Message-ID: <5231C5FF.3060504@hibox.fi>
Date:	Thu, 12 Sep 2013 16:47:43 +0300
From:	Marcus Sundman <marcus@...ox.fi>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Debugging system freezes on filesystem writes

On 12.09.2013 16:10, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 12-09-13 15:57:32, Marcus Sundman wrote:
>> On 27.02.2013 01:17, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Tue 26-02-13 20:41:36, Marcus Sundman wrote:
>>>> On 24.02.2013 03:20, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 11:12:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>> /dev/sda6 /home ext4 rw,noatime,discard 0 0
>>>>>>                                     ^^^^^^^
>>>>>> I'd say that's your problem....
>>>>> Looks like the Sandisk U100 is a good SSD for me to put on my personal
>>>>> "avoid" list:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thessdreview.com/our-reviews/asus-zenbook-ssd-review-not-necessarily-sandforce-driven-shows-significant-speed-bump/
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a number of SSD's which do not implement "trim" efficiently,
>>>>> so these days, the recommended way to use trim is to run the "fstrim"
>>>>> command out of crontab.
>>>> OK. Removing 'discard' made it much better (the 60-600 second
>>>> freezes are now 1-50 second freezes), but it's still at least an
>>>> order of magnitude worse than a normal HD. When writing, that is --
>>>> reading is very fast (when there's no writing going on).
>>>>
>>>> So, after reading up a bit on this trimming I'm thinking maybe my
>>>> filesystem's block sizes don't match up with my SSD's blocks (or
>>>> whatever its write unit is called). Then writing a FS block would
>>>> always write to multiple SSD blocks, causing multiple
>>>> read-erase-write sequences, right? So how can I check this, and how
>>>> can I make the FS blocks match the SSD blocks?
>>>    As Ted wrote, alignment isn't usually a problem with SSDs. And even if it
>>> was, it would be at most a factor 2 slow down and we don't seem to be at
>>> that fine grained level :)
>>>
>>> At this point you might try mounting the fs with nobarrier mount option (I
>>> know you tried that before but without discard the difference could be more
>>> visible), switching IO scheduler to CFQ (for crappy SSDs it actually isn't
>>> a bad choice), and we'll see how much we can squeeze out of your drive...
>> I repartitioned the drive and reinstalled ubuntu and after that it
>> gladly wrote over 100 MB/s to the SSD without any hangs. However,
>> after a couple of months I noticed it had degraded considerably, and
>> it keeps degrading. Now it's slowly becoming completely unusable
>> again, with write speeds of the magnitude 1 MB/s and dropping.
>>
>> As far as I can tell I have not made any relevant changes. Also, the
>> amount of free space hasn't changed considerably, but it seems that
>> the longer it's been since I reformatted the drive the more free
>> space is required for it to perform well.
>>
>> So, maybe the cause is fragmentation? I tried running e4defrag and
>> then fstrim, but it didn't really help (well, maybe a little bit,
>> but after a couple of days it was back in unusable-land). Also,
>> "e4defrag -c" gives a fragmenation score of less than 5, so...
>>
>> Any ideas?
>    So now you run without 'discard' mount option, right? My guess then would
> be that the FTL layer on your SSD is just crappy and as the erase blocks
> get more fragmented as the filesystem is used it cannot keep up. But it's
> easy to put blame on someone else :)
>
> You can check whether this is a problem of Linux or your SSD by writing a
> large file (few GB or more) like 'dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M
> count=4096 oflag=direct'. What is the throughput? If it is bad, check output
> of 'filefrag -v testfile'. If the extents are reasonably large (1 MB and
> more), then the problem is in your SSD firmware. Not much we can do about
> it in that case...
>
> If it really is SSD's firmware, maybe you could try f2fs or similar flash
> oriented filesystem which should put lower load on the disk's FTL.

----8<---------------------------
$ grep LABEL /etc/fstab
LABEL=system    /        ext4    errors=remount-ro,nobarrier,noatime 0 1
LABEL=home    /home        ext4    defaults,nobarrier,noatime 0    2
$ df -h|grep home
/dev/sda3       104G   98G  5.1G  96% /home
$ sync && time dd if=/dev/zero of=testfile bs=1M count=2048 oflag=direct 
&& time sync
2048+0 records in
2048+0 records out
2147483648 bytes (2.1 GB) copied, 404.571 s, 5.3 MB/s

real    6m44.575s
user    0m0.000s
sys    0m1.300s

real    0m0.111s
user    0m0.000s
sys    0m0.004s
$ filefrag -v testfile
Filesystem type is: ef53
File size of testfile is 2147483648 (524288 blocks, blocksize 4096)
  ext logical physical expected length flags
    0       0 21339392             512
  [... http://sundman.iki.fi/extents.txt ...]
  282  523520  1618176  1568000    768 eof
testfile: 282 extents found
$
----8<---------------------------

Many extents are around 400 blocks(?) -- is this good or bad? (This 
partition has a fragmentation score of 0 according to e4defrag.)


Regards,
Marcus

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists