Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Package: xfsprogs Version: 3.1.7 Followup-For: Bug #661580 Hi again, I've patched the NBD driver to set the physical sector size. Was way easier than I imagined: -- --- linux/drivers/block/nbd.c~ 2012-03-01 09:10:35.0 +0100 +++ linux/drivers/block/nbd.c 2012-03-01 08:57:49.0 +0100 @@ -413,6 +413,9 @@ return ret; } + /* Set physical block size to blocksize */ + blk_queue_physical_block_size(lo-disk-queue, lo-blksize); + while ((req = nbd_read_stat(lo)) != NULL) nbd_end_request(req); -- And I can confirm that the sector size detection is still broken in 3.1.7. root@frosties:~$ parted /dev/nbd0 GNU Parted 2.3 Using /dev/nbd0 Welcome to GNU Parted! Type 'help' to view a list of commands. (parted) p Model: Unknown (unknown) Disk /dev/nbd0: 16.8MB Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/4096B Partition Table: loop Number Start End SizeFile system Flags 1 0.00B 16.8MB 16.8MB xfs (parted) q root@frosties:~$ mkfs.xfs -f /dev/nbd0 meta-data=/dev/nbd0 isize=256agcount=1, agsize=4096 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0 data = bsize=4096 blocks=4096, imaxpct=25 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=1200, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 mrvn@frosties:~% tail /sys/block/nbd0/queue/* == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/add_random == 1 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/discard_granularity == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/discard_max_bytes == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/discard_zeroes_data == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/hw_sector_size == 512 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/iosched == tail: error reading `/sys/block/nbd0/queue/iosched': Is a directory == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/iostats == 1 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/logical_block_size == 512 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/max_hw_sectors_kb == 127 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/max_integrity_segments == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/max_sectors_kb == 127 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/max_segment_size == 65536 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/max_segments == 128 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/minimum_io_size == 4096 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/nomerges == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/nr_requests == 128 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/optimal_io_size == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/physical_block_size == 4096 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/read_ahead_kb == 128 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/rotational == 0 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/rq_affinity == 1 == /sys/block/nbd0/queue/scheduler == noop deadline [cfq] MfG Goswin -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages xfsprogs depends on: ii libblkid1 2.20.1-1 ii libc6 2.13-21 ii libreadline5 5.2-11 ii libuuid1 2.19.1-5 xfsprogs recommends no packages. Versions of packages xfsprogs suggests: pn acl 2.2.51-4 pn attr 1:2.4.46-3 pn quotanone pn xfsdump none -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And I can confirm that the sector size detection is still broken in 3.1.7. That's a known bug that Carlos wanted to look into. If you really can't accept smaller I/O without major pain make sure to use a larger logical blocksize, which should be handled fine by everything. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org writes: On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 04:53:32AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I'm asuming libblkid is used, otherwise a sectorsize of 512 would make no sense. It might be that NBD advertises the geometry wrong, as in ft.sectorsize isn't set correctly. That would make that part at least a kernel bug. Now that I've looked at nbd: I can't find any way to transfer the physical or logical block size information to the nbd client. How do you try set it on the server? I don't. The protocol doesn't (yet) have an option for this. There are a number of new options planed for the new handshake protocol but the nbd maintainer hasn't had time to implement them yet. What I do is set the blocksize = 4096 on the nbd-client commandline knowing that that is what the server expects. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org writes: On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And I can confirm that the sector size detection is still broken in 3.1.7. That's a known bug that Carlos wanted to look into. If you really can't accept smaller I/O without major pain make sure to use a larger logical blocksize, which should be handled fine by everything. Tried that too. Setting a locigal block size of 4096 makes all access aligned to 4096 byte and makes mkfs.xfs detect a sector size of 4096 too. But that breaks partitioning support for example. Linux simply won't read the partition table on /dev/nbd0 anymore. Not sure why. Plus that doesn't solve the problem for real harddisks. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
On 3/1/12 2:33 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: And I can confirm that the sector size detection is still broken in 3.1.7. That's a known bug that Carlos wanted to look into. If you really can't accept smaller I/O without major pain make sure to use a larger logical blocksize, which should be handled fine by everything. Carlos is a bit busy right now, I'll send a patch shortly; want to whip up an xfstest for this too. -Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
I've pushed a commit which should fix this, assuming xfsprogs is built with libblkid support enabled: http://git.kernel.org/?p=fs/xfs/xfsprogs-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=287d168b550857ce40e04b5f618d7eb91b87022f -Eric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
On 2/28/12 3:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue?
Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O
when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS
can't do I/O smaller than it.
I did think this was supposed to be working already:
get_topology(xi, ft);
if (ft.sectoralign) {
/*
* Older Linux software RAID versions want the sector size
* to match the block size to avoid switching I/O sizes.
* For the legacy libdisk case we thus set the sector size to
* match the block size. For systems using libblkid we assume
* that the kernel is recent enough to not require this and
* ft.sectoralign will never be set.
*/
sectorsize = blocksize;
} else if (!ssflag) {
/*
* Unless specified manually on the command line use the
* advertised sector size of the device.
*/
sectorsize = ft.sectorsize ? ft.sectorsize : XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE;
}
but it may depend on whether or not it is being built with libblkid support or
not...?
I'll try to test it when I have some time, unless Carlos beats me to it.
-Eric
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Eric Sandeen sand...@sandeen.net writes:
On 2/28/12 3:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue?
Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O
when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS
can't do I/O smaller than it.
I did think this was supposed to be working already:
get_topology(xi, ft);
if (ft.sectoralign) {
/*
* Older Linux software RAID versions want the sector size
* to match the block size to avoid switching I/O sizes.
* For the legacy libdisk case we thus set the sector size to
* match the block size. For systems using libblkid we assume
* that the kernel is recent enough to not require this and
* ft.sectoralign will never be set.
*/
sectorsize = blocksize;
} else if (!ssflag) {
/*
* Unless specified manually on the command line use the
* advertised sector size of the device.
*/
sectorsize = ft.sectorsize ? ft.sectorsize :
XFS_MIN_SECTORSIZE;
}
but it may depend on whether or not it is being built with libblkid support
or not...?
I'll try to test it when I have some time, unless Carlos beats me to it.
-Eric
I'm asuming libblkid is used, otherwise a sectorsize of 512 would make
no sense.
It might be that NBD advertises the geometry wrong, as in ft.sectorsize
isn't set correctly. That would make that part at least a kernel bug.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 04:53:32AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: I'm asuming libblkid is used, otherwise a sectorsize of 512 would make no sense. It might be that NBD advertises the geometry wrong, as in ft.sectorsize isn't set correctly. That would make that part at least a kernel bug. Now that I've looked at nbd: I can't find any way to transfer the physical or logical block size information to the nbd client. How do you try set it on the server? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue? Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS can't do I/O smaller than it. On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:49:14AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Package: xfsprogs Version: 3.1.7 Severity: important File: /sbin/mkfs.xfs Hi, since I recently bought a harddisk with 4K sector size I've been checking for correct alignment and blocksizes in various things. One of them being xfs. When I partition the disk in parted it shows correctly to have a logical blocksize of 512 byte and physical blocksize of 4096 byte. But mkfs.xfs does not detect that the physical blocksize is 4096 byte and creates a filesystem with: meta-data=/dev/sde1 isize=256agcount=32, agsize=22892696 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=732566272, imaxpct=5 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357698, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 This often results in access to the disk that is not aligned to the blocksize with the resulting degradation in performance. Further, manually selecting the right sector size of 4096 still causes lots of unaligned access while formating and while mounting the filesystem. It does seem to fix the problem for actual use though. MfG Goswin -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages xfsprogs depends on: ii libblkid1 2.20.1-1 ii libc6 2.13-21 ii libreadline5 5.2-11 ii libuuid1 2.19.1-5 xfsprogs recommends no packages. Versions of packages xfsprogs suggests: pn acl 2.2.51-4 pn attr 1:2.4.46-3 pn quotanone pn xfsdump none -- no debconf information ___ xfs mailing list x...@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ---end quoted text--- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 04:11:51AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue? Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS can't do I/O smaller than it. On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 08:49:14AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Yes, I was looking to it some time ago, but iirc it was already implemented and I was just fixins some issues on the code already implemented. I just got a new box and I'm recovering my backup (including code trees). I'll take a look on this later today and let you know on which steps this is. -- --Carlos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Christoph Hellwig h...@infradead.org writes: Carlos, didn't you plan to look into this issue? Goswin, how do you determin that mkfs is still doing unaligned I/O when forcing the large sevtor size? Once we set the sector size XFS can't do I/O smaller than it. I'm writing a nbd-server that uses async IO via libaio (the linux kernel AIO interface). This has some alignment requirements so I set nbd to use a 4k blocksize and added asserts that all requests are page aligned (both offset and size of the request). That worked fine for dd and mkfs.ext4 but fails on mount in general or mkfs.xfs. So next I added a printf(WARNING: unaligned read/write) and handled unaligned access in the server to see how extensive the problem is. With ext4 I get ONE single read request of 512 Byte on mount and everything else properly 4k aligned. With xfs I get a ton of them. If you want I can add a log of the read/write requests a mkfs.xfs and mount generates. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#661580: mkfs.xfs fails to detect correct sector size
Package: xfsprogs Version: 3.1.7 Severity: important File: /sbin/mkfs.xfs Hi, since I recently bought a harddisk with 4K sector size I've been checking for correct alignment and blocksizes in various things. One of them being xfs. When I partition the disk in parted it shows correctly to have a logical blocksize of 512 byte and physical blocksize of 4096 byte. But mkfs.xfs does not detect that the physical blocksize is 4096 byte and creates a filesystem with: meta-data=/dev/sde1 isize=256agcount=32, agsize=22892696 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4096 blocks=732566272, imaxpct=5 = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=357698, version=2 = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 This often results in access to the disk that is not aligned to the blocksize with the resulting degradation in performance. Further, manually selecting the right sector size of 4096 still causes lots of unaligned access while formating and while mounting the filesystem. It does seem to fix the problem for actual use though. MfG Goswin -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_DE (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages xfsprogs depends on: ii libblkid1 2.20.1-1 ii libc6 2.13-21 ii libreadline5 5.2-11 ii libuuid1 2.19.1-5 xfsprogs recommends no packages. Versions of packages xfsprogs suggests: pn acl 2.2.51-4 pn attr 1:2.4.46-3 pn quotanone pn xfsdump none -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
