[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] A thin-p over 256 GiB fails with I/O errors with non-power-of-two chunk



On Tue, Jan 22 2013 at  6:10am -0500,
Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac redhat com> wrote:

> Dne 21.1.2013 19:49, Mike Snitzer napsal(a):
> >
> >Switching the thin-pool lvcreate to use --chunksize 1152K at least
> >enables me to format the filesystem.
> >
> >And both the thin-pool and thin device have an optimal_io_size that
> >matches the chunk_size of the underlying raid volume:
> >
> >cat /sys/block/dm-9/queue/optimal_io_size
> >1179648
> >cat /sys/block/dm-10/queue/optimal_io_size
> >1179648
> >
> >I'm still investigating the limits issue when --chunksize 1152K isn't
> >used for the thin-pool lvcreate.
> 
> Just a comment for the selection of thin chunksize here -
> 
> I think it has couple aspects here - by default (unless changed via
> lvm.conf {allocation/thin_pool_chunk_size}) it is targeting for 64K
> and scales chunksize up to fit thin metadata within 128MB.
> (compiled in as DEFAULT_THIN_POOL_OPTIMAL_SIZE)
> So lvm2 here scaled from 64k to 256k in multiTB case.

Not quite sure what you mean by "to fit thin metadata within 128MB".
Why is fitting within 128MB the goal?  I recall Joe helping to establish
the rule of thumb for lvm2 but I don't recall specifics at this point.

> lvcreate currently doesn't look out for geometry of underlying PV(s)
> during its allocation (somewhat chicken-egg problem) - yet there are
> possible ways to try to put this into equation - thought it might
> not be actually wanted by the user - since for snapshots the smaller
> chunksize is more usable
> (>1MB is quite a lot here IMHO) - but it probably worth some thinking.

I've found that the mkfs.xfs (which uses direct IO) will work if the
thinp chunksize is a factor of the raid0 chunksize.  So all of the
following thinp chunksizes "work" given that the raid0 chunksize is
1152K: 64K, 128K, 384K, 576K, 1152K

I haven't done extensive IO testing on the result XFS filesystem though.
So I don't want to get too far into shaping lvm2's chunksize selection
algorithm until I can dive into the kernel's limits stacking further
(which I'm doing now).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]