On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 14:48 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 20:02 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Metadata is duplicated by default even on single spindle drives, > > > > Can you please say a bit how much that impacts performance? That sounds > > costly. > > Most metadata is allocated in groups of 128k or 256k, and so most of the > writes are nicely sized. The mirroring code has areas of the disk > dedicated to mirror other areas.
[ ... ] > So, the mirroring turns a single large write into two large writes. > Definitely not free, but always a fixed cost. > With /sys/block/sdb/queue/nr_requests at 8192 to hide my IO ordering > submission problems: > > Btrfs defaults: 57MB/s > Btrfs no mirror: 61.51MB/s I spent a bunch of time hammering on different ways to fix this without increasing nr_requests, and it was a mixture of needing better tuning in btrfs and needing to init mapping->writeback_index on inode allocation. So, today's numbers for creating 30 kernel trees in sequence: Btrfs defaults 57.41 MB/s Btrfs dup no csum 74.59 MB/s Btrfs no duplication 76.83 MB/s Btrfs no dup no csum no inline 76.85 MB/s Ext4 data=writeback, delalloc 60.50 MB/s I may be able to get the duplication numbers higher by tuning metadata writeback. My current code doesn't push metadata throughput as high in order to give some spindle time to data writes. This graph may give you an idea of how the duplication goes to disk: http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/btrfs-dup/btrfs-default.png Compared with the result of mkfs.btrfs -m single (no duplication): http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/btrfs-dup/btrfs-single.png Both on one graph is a little hard to read: http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/btrfs-dup/btrfs-dup-compare.png Here is btrfs with duplication on, but without checksumming. Even with inline extents on, the checksums seem to cause most of the metadata related syncing (they are stored in the btree): http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/btrfs-dup/btrfs-dup-nosum.png It is worth noting that with checksumming on, I go through async kthreads to do the checksumming and they may be reordering the IO a bit as they submit things. So, I'm not 100% sure the extra seeks aren't coming from my async code. And Ext4: http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/btrfs-dup/ext4-writeback.png This benchmark has questionable real world value, but since it includes a number of smallish files it is a good place to look at the cost of metadata and metadata dup I'll push the btrfs related changes for this out tonight after some stress testing. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
