Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
Am Freitag, 12. Oktober 2012 schrieb Martin Steigerwald: > > Time (seconds) to finish 7 simultaneous copy operations on a set of > > Linux kernel git sources. > > > > > > > > Leafsize/ > > NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) > > 4096 124.7 (1.25%) > > 8192 115.2 (0.69%) > > 16384114.8 (0.53%) > > 65536130.5 (0.3%) > > Thanks for your testing, Mitch. > > I would be interested in results for 32768 bytes as well. > > Why? > > It improves until 16384 bytes but then it gets worse with 65536 bytes. > It would be interesting to know whether it improves for 32768 or > already gets worse with that value :) Please ignore. I was answering to a old thread that was shown on top of message list to answer to Phillip again. We had that topic already. Sorry for noise. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012 schrieb Mitch Harder: > I've been trying out different leafsize/nodesize settings by > benchmarking some typical operations. > > These changes had more impact than I expected. Using a > leafsize/nodesize of either 8192 or 16384 provided a noticeable > improvement in my limited testing. > > These results are similar to some that Chris Mason has already > reported: https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ > > I noticed that metadata allocation was more efficient with bigger > block sizes. My data was git kernel sources, which will utilize > btrfs' inlining. This may have tilted the scales. > > Read operations seemed to benefit the most. Write operations seemed > to get punished when the leafsize/nodesize was increased to 64K. > > Are there any known downsides to using a leafsize/nodesize bigger than > the default 4096? > > > Time (seconds) to finish 7 simultaneous copy operations on a set of > Linux kernel git sources. > > Leafsize/ > NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) > 4096 124.7 (1.25%) > 8192 115.2 (0.69%) > 16384114.8 (0.53%) > 65536130.5 (0.3%) Thanks for your testing, Mitch. I would be interested in results for 32768 bytes as well. Why? It improves until 16384 bytes but then it gets worse with 65536 bytes. It would be interesting to know whether it improves for 32768 or already gets worse with that value :) Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/2012 12:25 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Once you cross some hardware dependant threshold (usually past 32k) > you start incurring high memmove() overhead in most workloads. > Like all benchmarking its good to test your workload and see what > works best, but 16k should generally be the best option. Thanks, > > Josef Why are memmove()s neccesary, can they be avoided, and why do they incur more overhead with 32k+ sizes? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQdwjZAAoJEJrBOlT6nu75rkYH/RYXBbAJfIG2KmmmFA8kSIiL EEvdA9KRnVH08h2lnB26xNdCPbf59M7GrH2hZK48gM9x4OQPzKXf8eCTYTy4mFKy mqTPFsgcPveTFtgoRXkuhZvUXMpFV4M8I7MLZRCcxk5KWTwA/slcunQxG7BMz/V4 tBxE8ya2Hxej2VJe4AbLR6PJbvCGsFXNlxBpUy9Qh7q0TmDeGzsoaZ1We1itNjQZ wWjTerka2qe9dyP8EOUp/uZqGUQXu1TUKbTLygsfMb11/vGMkoUkZtTa0f9lQosw 10UlA8TyqAkLX3gpQzsJVCwiRuNWQBbQqvdYq3dCQOgzBbvOdvD6TtmeS1saO4o= =qV0c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 23:34:49 +0200 Martin Steigerwald wrote: > I wanted to ask about 32k either. > > I used 32k on one 2,5 inch external esata disk. But I never measured > anything so far. > > I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore > than 16k, but thats just some gut feeling right now. Nothing based on a > well-founded explaination. If you look closely at https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ , you will notice that 16K delivers almost all of the 32K's performance gains in "Read", while not suffering from slowdowns that 32K shows in "Create" and "Delete". I have chosen 16K for my new /home partition (on an SSD+HDD mdadm RAID1). But what disappointed me at the time, is that one can't seem to have a "mixed" allocation FS with non-default leaf/node sizes. -- With respect, Roman ~~~ "Stallman had a printer, with code he could not see. So he began to tinker, and set the software free." signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:50:08PM -0600, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:34:49PM -0600, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore > > than 16k, but thats just some gut feeling right now. Nothing based on a > > well-founded explaination. > > > > 32k really starts to depend on your workload. Generally speaking everybody > will > be faster with 16k, but 32k starts to depend on your workload and hardware, > and > then anything about 64k really starts to hurt with memmove(). With this sort > of > thing SSD vs not isn't going to make much of a difference, erase blocks tend > to > be several megs in size so you aren't going to get anywhere close to avoiding > the internal RMW cycle inside the ssd. Thanks, I almost made 16k the default, but the problem is that it does increase lock contention because bigger nodes mean fewer locks. You can see this with dbench and compilebench, especially early in the FS life. My goal is to make the cow step of btrfs_search_slot really atomic, so we don't have to switch to a blocking lock. That will really fix a lot of contention problems. -chris -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 03:34:49PM -0600, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012 schrieb Josef Bacik: > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote: > > > I've been trying out different leafsize/nodesize settings by > > > benchmarking some typical operations. > > > > > > These changes had more impact than I expected. Using a > > > leafsize/nodesize of either 8192 or 16384 provided a noticeable > > > improvement in my limited testing. > > > > > > These results are similar to some that Chris Mason has already > > > reported: https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ > > > > > > I noticed that metadata allocation was more efficient with bigger > > > block sizes. My data was git kernel sources, which will utilize > > > btrfs' inlining. This may have tilted the scales. > > > > > > Read operations seemed to benefit the most. Write operations seemed > > > to get punished when the leafsize/nodesize was increased to 64K. > > > > > > Are there any known downsides to using a leafsize/nodesize bigger > > > than the default 4096? > > > > Once you cross some hardware dependant threshold (usually past 32k) you > > start incurring high memmove() overhead in most workloads. Like all > > benchmarking its good to test your workload and see what works best, > > but 16k should generally be the best option. Thanks, > > I wanted to ask about 32k either. > > I used 32k on one 2,5 inch external esata disk. But I never measured > anything so far. > > I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore > than 16k, but thats just some gut feeling right now. Nothing based on a > well-founded explaination. > 32k really starts to depend on your workload. Generally speaking everybody will be faster with 16k, but 32k starts to depend on your workload and hardware, and then anything about 64k really starts to hurt with memmove(). With this sort of thing SSD vs not isn't going to make much of a difference, erase blocks tend to be several megs in size so you aren't going to get anywhere close to avoiding the internal RMW cycle inside the ssd. Thanks, Josef -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2012 schrieb Josef Bacik: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote: > > I've been trying out different leafsize/nodesize settings by > > benchmarking some typical operations. > > > > These changes had more impact than I expected. Using a > > leafsize/nodesize of either 8192 or 16384 provided a noticeable > > improvement in my limited testing. > > > > These results are similar to some that Chris Mason has already > > reported: https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ > > > > I noticed that metadata allocation was more efficient with bigger > > block sizes. My data was git kernel sources, which will utilize > > btrfs' inlining. This may have tilted the scales. > > > > Read operations seemed to benefit the most. Write operations seemed > > to get punished when the leafsize/nodesize was increased to 64K. > > > > Are there any known downsides to using a leafsize/nodesize bigger > > than the default 4096? > > Once you cross some hardware dependant threshold (usually past 32k) you > start incurring high memmove() overhead in most workloads. Like all > benchmarking its good to test your workload and see what works best, > but 16k should generally be the best option. Thanks, I wanted to ask about 32k either. I used 32k on one 2,5 inch external esata disk. But I never measured anything so far. I wonder what a good value for SSD might be. I tend to not use anymore than 16k, but thats just some gut feeling right now. Nothing based on a well-founded explaination. Thanks, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 -- 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
Re: Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 09:18:07AM -0600, Mitch Harder wrote: > I've been trying out different leafsize/nodesize settings by > benchmarking some typical operations. > > These changes had more impact than I expected. Using a > leafsize/nodesize of either 8192 or 16384 provided a noticeable > improvement in my limited testing. > > These results are similar to some that Chris Mason has already > reported: https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ > > I noticed that metadata allocation was more efficient with bigger > block sizes. My data was git kernel sources, which will utilize > btrfs' inlining. This may have tilted the scales. > > Read operations seemed to benefit the most. Write operations seemed > to get punished when the leafsize/nodesize was increased to 64K. > > Are there any known downsides to using a leafsize/nodesize bigger than > the default 4096? > Once you cross some hardware dependant threshold (usually past 32k) you start incurring high memmove() overhead in most workloads. Like all benchmarking its good to test your workload and see what works best, but 16k should generally be the best option. Thanks, Josef -- 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
Varying Leafsize and Nodesize in Btrfs
I've been trying out different leafsize/nodesize settings by benchmarking some typical operations. These changes had more impact than I expected. Using a leafsize/nodesize of either 8192 or 16384 provided a noticeable improvement in my limited testing. These results are similar to some that Chris Mason has already reported: https://oss.oracle.com/~mason/blocksizes/ I noticed that metadata allocation was more efficient with bigger block sizes. My data was git kernel sources, which will utilize btrfs' inlining. This may have tilted the scales. Read operations seemed to benefit the most. Write operations seemed to get punished when the leafsize/nodesize was increased to 64K. Are there any known downsides to using a leafsize/nodesize bigger than the default 4096? Time (seconds) to finish 7 simultaneous copy operations on a set of Linux kernel git sources. Leafsize/ NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) 4096 124.7 (1.25%) 8192 115.2 (0.69%) 16384114.8 (0.53%) 65536130.5 (0.3%) Time (seconds) to finish 'git status' on a set of Linux kernel git sources. Leafsize/ NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) 4096 13.2 (0.86%) 8192 11.2 (1.36%) 16384 9.0 (0.92%) 65536 8.5 (1.3%) Time (seconds) to perform a git checkout of a different branch on a set of Linux kernel sources. Leafsize/ NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) 4096 19.4 (1.1%) 8192 16.94 (3.1%) 16384 14.4 (0.6%) 65536 16.3 (0.8%) Time (seconds) to perform 7 simultaneous rsync threads on the Linux kernel git sources directories. Leafsize/ NodesizeTime (Std Dev%) 4096 410.3 (4.5%) 8192 289.8 (0.96%) 16384250.7 (3.8%) 65536227.0 (1.2%) Used Metadata (MB) as reported by 'btrfs fi df' Leafsize/ NodesizeSize (Std Dev%) 4096 484 MB (0.13%) 8192 443 MB (0.2%) 16384424 MB (0.2%) 65536411 MB (0.2%) -- 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
