Re: [RFC] ext3: per-process soft-syncing data=ordered mode

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Tue 05-02-08 10:07:44, Al Boldi wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Sat 02-02-08 00:26:00, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > Al, could you please compare the write throughput from vmstat for the
> > > > data=ordered vs data=writeback runs?  I would guess the data=ordered
> > > > one has a lower overall write throughput.
> > >
> > > That's what I would have guessed, but it's actually going up 4x fold for
> > > mysql from 559mb to 2135mb, while the db-size ends up at 549mb.
> >
> >   So you say we write 4-times as much data in ordered mode as in writeback
> > mode. Hmm, probably possible because we force all the dirty data to disk
> > when committing a transation in ordered mode (and don't do this in
> > writeback mode). So if the workload repeatedly dirties the whole DB, we
> > are going to write the whole DB several times in ordered mode but in
> > writeback mode we just keep the data in memory all the time. But this is
> > what you ask for if you mount in ordered mode so I wouldn't consider it a
> > bug.
> 
> Ok, maybe not a bug, but a bit inefficient.  Check out this workload:
> 
> sync;
> 
> while :; do
>   dd < /dev/full > /mnt/sda2/x.dmp bs=1M count=20
>   rm -f /mnt/sda2/x.dmp
>   usleep 10000
> done
> 
> vmstat 1 ( with mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/sda2 -o data=writeback) << note io-bo >>
> 
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
>  2  0      0 293008   5232  57436    0    0     0     0   18   206  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 282840   5232  67620    0    0     0     0   18   238  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 297032   5244  53364    0    0     0   152   21   211  4 79 17  0
>  1  0      0 285236   5244  65224    0    0     0     0   18   232  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 299464   5244  50880    0    0     0     0   18   222  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 290156   5244  60176    0    0     0     0   18   236  3 80 17  0
>  0  0      0 302124   5256  47788    0    0     0   152   21   213  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 292180   5256  58248    0    0     0     0   18   239  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 287452   5256  62444    0    0     0     0   18   202  3 80 17  0
>  1  0      0 293016   5256  57392    0    0     0     0   18   250  4 80 16  0
>  0  0      0 302052   5256  47788    0    0     0     0   19   194  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 297536   5268  52928    0    0     0   152   20   233  4 79 17  0
>  1  0      0 286468   5268  63872    0    0     0     0   18   212  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 301572   5268  48812    0    0     0     0   18   267  4 79 17  0
>  1  0      0 292636   5268  57776    0    0     0     0   18   208  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 302124   5280  47788    0    0     0   152   21   237  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 291436   5280  58976    0    0     0     0   18   205  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 302068   5280  47788    0    0     0     0   18   234  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 293008   5280  57388    0    0     0     0   18   221  4 79 17  0
>  1  0      0 297288   5292  52532    0    0     0   156   22   233  2 81 16  1
>  1  0      0 294676   5292  55724    0    0     0     0   19   199  3 81 16  0
> 
> 
> vmstat 1 (with mount /dev/sda2 /mnt/sda2 -o data=ordered)
> 
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
>  2  0      0 291052   5156  59016    0    0     0     0   19   223  3 82 15  0
>  1  0      0 291408   5156  58704    0    0     0     0   18   218  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 291888   5156  58276    0    0     0    20   23   229  3 80 17  0
>  1  0      0 300764   5168  49472    0    0     0 12864   91   235  3 69 13 15
>  1  0      0 300740   5168  49456    0    0     0     0   19   215  3 80 17  0
>  1  0      0 301088   5168  49044    0    0     0     0   18   241  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 298220   5168  51872    0    0     0     0   18   225  3 81 16  0
>  0  1      0 289168   5168  60752    0    0     0 12712   45   237  3 77 15  5
>  1  0      0 300260   5180  49852    0    0     0   152   68   211  4 72 15  9
>  1  0      0 298616   5180  51460    0    0     0     0   18   237  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 296988   5180  53092    0    0     0     0   18   223  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 296608   5180  53480    0    0     0     0   18   223  3 81 16  0
>  0  0      0 301640   5192  48036    0    0     0 12868   93   206  4 67 13 16
>  0  0      0 301624   5192  48036    0    0     0     0   21   218  3 81 16  0
>  0  0      0 301600   5192  48036    0    0     0     0   18   212  3 81 16  0
>  0  0      0 301584   5192  48036    0    0     0     0   18   209  4 80 16  0
>  0  0      0 301568   5192  48036    0    0     0     0   18   208  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 285520   5204  64548    0    0     0 12864   95   216  3 69 13 15
>  2  0      0 285124   5204  64924    0    0     0     0   18   222  4 80 16  0
>  1  0      0 283612   5204  66392    0    0     0     0   18   231  3 81 16  0
>  1  0      0 284216   5204  65736    0    0     0     0   18   218  4 80 16  0
>  0  1      0 289160   5204  60752    0    0     0 12712   56   213  3 74 15  8
>  1  0      0 285884   5216  64128    0    0     0   152   54   209  4 75 15  6
>  1  0      0 287472   5216  62572    0    0     0     0   18   223  3 81 16  0
> 
> Do you think these 12mb redundant writeouts could be buffered?
  No, I don't think so. At least when I run it, number of blocks written
out varies which confirms that these 12mb are just data blocks which happen
to be in the file when transaction commits (which is every 5 seconds). And
to satisfy journaling gurantees in ordered mode you must write them so you
really have no choice...

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR