[lustre-discuss] lfs_migrate rsync vs. lfs migrate and layout swap
Dauchy, Nathan (ARC-TNC)[CSRA, LLC]
nathan.dauchy at nasa.gov
Mon Nov 20 08:49:49 PST 2017
Thanks for the info. The benefit of keeping open filehandles and inode number is good to understand, but for my immediate case the OSTs have been deactivated and then set max_create_count=0 for several weeks, so I'm not too concerned about any remaining open files.
If I get anything interesting back from strace, I'll report here.
What about the checksum issue? It still looks to me like that is only done with the rsync method.
From: Dilger, Andreas [andreas.dilger at intel.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 4:01 PM
To: Dauchy, Nathan (ARC-TNC)[CSRA, LLC]
Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
Subject: Re: [lustre-discuss] lfs_migrate rsync vs. lfs migrate and layout swap
It would be interesting to strace your rsync vs. "lfs migrate" read/write patterns so that the copy method of "lfs migrate" can be improved to match rsync. Since they are both userspace copy actions they should be about the same performance. It may be that "lfs migrate" is using O_DIRECT to minimize client cache pollution (I don't have the code handy to check right now). In the future we could use "copyfile()" to avoid this as well.
The main benefit of migrate is that it keeps the open file handles and inode number on the MDS. Using rsync is just a copy+rename, which is why it is not safe for in-use files.
There is no need to clean up volatile files, they are essentially open-unlinked files, so they clean up automatically if the program or client crash.
> On Nov 19, 2017, at 11:31, Dauchy, Nathan (ARC-TNC)[CSRA, LLC] <nathan.dauchy at nasa.gov> wrote:
> I'm trying to clarify and confirm the differences between lfs_migrate's use of rsync vs. "lfs migrate". This is in regards to performance, checksumming, and interrupts. Relevant code changes that introduced the two methods are here:
> The quick testing I have done is with a 8GB file with stripe count of 4, and included the patch to lfs_migrate from:
> (and client cache was dropped between each test)
> $ time ./lfs_migrate -y bigfile
> real 1m13.643s
> $ time ./lfs_migrate -y -s bigfile
> real 1m13.194s
> $ time ./lfs_migrate -y -f bigfile
> real 0m31.791s
> $ time ./lfs_migrate -y -f -s bigfile
> real 0m28.020s
> * Performance: The migrate runs faster when forcing rsync (assuming multiple stripes). There is also minimal performance benefit to skipping the checksum with the rsync method. Interestingly, performance with "lfs migrate" as the backend is barely effected (and within the noise when I ran multiple tests) by the choice of checksumming or not. So, my question is whether there is some serialization going on with the layout swap method which causes it to be slower?
> * Checksums: In reading the migrate code in lfs.c, it is not obvious to me that there is any checksumming done at all for "lfs migrate". That would explain why there is minimal performance difference. How is data integrity ensured with this method? Does the file data version somehow capture the checksum too?
> * Interrupts: If the rsync method is interrupted (kill -9, or client reboot) then a ".tmp.XXXXXX" file is left. This is reasonably easy to search for and clean up. With the lfs migrate layout swap method, what happens to the "volatile file" and it's objects? Is an lfsck required in order to clean up the objects?
> At this point, the "old" method seems preferable. Are there other benefits to using the lfs migrate layout swap method that I'm missing?
> Thanks for any clarifications or other suggestions!
> lustre-discuss mailing list
> lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
More information about the lustre-discuss