Hello Chris, Dne 7.5.2018 v 18:37 Chris Mason napsal(a): > > > On 7 May 2018, at 12:16, Martin Svec wrote: > >> Hello Chris, >> >> Dne 7.5.2018 v 16:49 Chris Mason napsal(a): >>> On 7 May 2018, at 7:40, Martin Svec wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> According to man btrfs [1], I assume that metadata_ratio=1 mount option >>>> should >>>> force allocation of one metadata chunk after every allocated data chunk. >>>> However, >>>> when I set this option and start filling btrfs with "dd if=/dev/zero >>>> of=dummyfile.dat", >>>> only data chunks are allocated but no metadata ones. So, how does the >>>> metadata_ratio >>>> option really work? >>>> >>>> Note that I'm trying to use this option as a workaround of the bug >>>> reported here: >>>> >>> >>> [ urls that FB email server eats, sorry ] >> >> It's link to "Btrfs remounted read-only due to ENOSPC in >> btrfs_run_delayed_refs" thread :) > > Oh yeah, the link worked fine, it just goes through this url defense monster > that munges it in > replies. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> i.e. I want to manually preallocate metadata chunks to avoid nightly >>>> ENOSPC errors. >>> >>> >>> metadata_ratio is almost but not quite what you want. It sets a flag on >>> the space_info to force a >>> chunk allocation the next time we decide to call should_alloc_chunk(). >>> Thanks to the overcommit >>> code, we usually don't call that until the metadata we think we're going to >>> need is bigger than >>> the metadata space available. In other words, by the time we're into the >>> code that honors the >>> force flag, reservations are already high enough to make us allocate the >>> chunk anyway. >> >> Yeah, that's how I understood the code. So I think metadata_ratio man >> section is quite confusing >> because it implies that btrfs guarantees given metadata to data chunk space >> ratio, which isn't true. >> >>> >>> I tried to use metadata_ratio to experiment with forcing more metadata slop >>> space, but really I >>> have to tweak the overcommit code first. >>> Omar beat me to a better solution, tracking down our transient ENOSPC >>> problems here at FB to >>> reservations done for orphans. Do you have a lot of deleted files still >>> being held open? lsof >>> /mntpoint | grep deleted will list them. >> >> I'll take a look during backup window. The initial bug report describes our >> rsync workload in >> detail, for your reference.
No, there're no trailing deleted files during backup. However, I noticed something interesting in strace output: rsync does ftruncate() of every transferred file before closing it. In 99.9% cases the file is truncated to its own size, so it should be a no-op. But these ftruncates are by far the slowest syscalls according to strace timing and btrfs_truncate() comments itself as "indeed ugly". Could it be the root cause of global reservations pressure? I've found this patch from Filipe (Cc'd): https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10205013/. Should I apply it to our 4.14.y kernel and try the impact on intensive rsync workloads? Thank you Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
