2012-10-12 (금), 16:30 +0400, Vyacheslav Dubeyko: > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 18:43 +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > [snip] > > > > How about the following scenario? > > > > 1. data "a" is newly written. > > > > 2. checkpoint "A" is done. > > > > 3. data "a" is truncated. > > > > 4. checkpoint "B" is done. > > > > > > > > If fs supports multiple snapshots like "A" and "B" to users, it cannot > > > > reuse the space allocated by > > > > data "a" after checkpoint "B" even though data "a" is safely truncated > > > > by checkpoint "B". > > > > This is because fs should keep data "a" to prepare a roll-back to "A". > > > > So, even though user sees some free space, LFS may suffer from cleaning > > > > due to the exhausted free > > > space. > > > > If users want to avoid this, they have to remove snapshots by > > > > themselves. Or, maybe automatically? > > > > > > > > > > I feel that here it exists some misunderstanding in checkpoint/snapshot > > > terminology (especially, for > > > the NILFS2 case). It is possible that NILFS2 volume can contain only > > > checkpoints (if user doesn't > > > created any snapshot). You are right, snapshot cannot be deleted because, > > > in other word, user marked > > > this file system state as important point. But checkpoints can be > > > reclaimed easily. I can't see any > > > problem to reclaim free space from checkpoints in above-mentioned > > > scenario in the case of NILFS2. But > > > > I meant that snapshot does checkpoint. > > And, the problem is related to real file system utilization managed by > > NILFS2. > > [fs utilization to users] [fs utilization managed by > > NILFS2] > > X - 1 X - 1 > > 1. new data "a" X X > > 2. snapshot "A" X X > > 3. truncate "a" X - 1 X > > 4. snapshot "B" X - 1 X > > > > After this, user can see X-1, but the performance will be affected by X. > > Until the snapshot "A" is removed, user will experience the performance > > determined by X. > > Do I misunderstand? > > > > Ok. Maybe I have some misunderstanding but checkpoint and snapshot are > different things for me (especially, in the case of NILFS2). :-) > > The most important is that f2fs has more efficient scheme of working with > checkpoints, from your point of view. If you are right then it is very good. > And I need to be more familiar with f2fs code. >
Ok, thanks. > [snip] > > > As I know, NILFS2 has Garbage Collector that removes checkpoints > > > automatically in background. But it > > > is possible also to force removing as checkpoints as snapshots by hands > > > with special utility using. As > > > > If users may not want to remove the snapshots automatically, should they > > configure not to do this too? > > > > As I know, NILFS2 doesn't delete snapshots automatically but checkpoints - > yes. Moreover, it exists nilfs_cleanerd.conf configuration file that makes > possible to manage by NILFS cleanerd daemon's behavior (min/max number of > clean segments, selection policy, check/clean intervals and so on). > Ok. > [snip] > > > > IMHO, user does not need to know how many snapshots there exist and > > > > track the fs utilization all the > > > time. > > > > (off list: I don't know why cleaning process should be tuned by users.) > > > > > > > > > > What do you plan to do in the case of users' complains about issues with > > > free space reclaiming? If > > > user doesn't know about checkpoints and haven't any tools for accessing > > > to checkpoints then how is it > > > possible to investigate issues with free space reclaiming on an user side? > > > > Could you explain why reclaiming free space is an issue? > > IMHO, that issue is caused by adopting multiple snapshots. > > > > I didn't mean that reclaiming free space is an issue. I hope that f2fs > is stable but unfortunately it is not possible for any software to be > completely without bugs. So, anyway, f2fs users can have some issues > during using. One of the possible issue can be unexpected situation > with not reclaiming of free space. So, my question was about > possibility to investigate such bug on the user's side. From my point > of view, NILFS2 has very good utilities for such investigation. You mean fsck? Of course, we've implemented fsck tool also. But, why I didn't open it is that code is a mess. Another reason is that current fsck tool only checks the consistency of f2fs. Now we're still working on it to open. > > [snip] > > > > In our experiments *also* on android phones, we've seen many random > > > > patterns with frequent fsync > > > calls. > > > > We found that the main problem is database, and I think f2fs is > > > > beneficial to this. > > > > > > I think that database is not main use-case on Android phones. The > > > dominating use-case can be operation > > > by multimedia information and operations with small files, from my point > > > of view. > > > > > > So, it is possible to extract such key points from the shared paper: (1) > > > file has complex structure; > > > (2) sequential access is not sequential; (3) auxiliary files dominate; > > > (4) multiple threads perform > > > I/O. > > > > > > I am afraid that random modification of different part of files and I/O > > > operations from multiple > > > threads can lead to significant fragmentation as file fragments as > > > directory meta-information because > > > of garbage collection. > > > > Could you explain in more detail? > > > > I mean that complex structure of modern files can lead to random modification > of small file's parts. > Moreover, such modifications can occur from multiple threads. > So, it means for me that Copy-On-Write policy can lead to file's content > fragmentation. > Then GC can make additional fragmentation also. > But maybe I have some misunderstanding of f2fs internal techniques. > Right. Random modification may cause data fragmentation due to COW in LFS. But, this is from the host side view only. If we consider FTL with file system adopting the in-place-update scheme, eventually FTL should handle the fragmentation issue instead of file system. So, I think fragmentation is not a particular issue in LFS only. > With the best regards, > Vyacheslav Dubeyko. > > -- Jaegeuk Kim Samsung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
