Archive for the 'linux file system performance' Category

Standard File System Tools? We Don’t Need No Standard File System Tools!

Yesterday I posted a blog entry about copying files on Solaris. I received some side channel email on the post such as one with the following tidbit from a very good, long time friend of mine. He wrote:

So optimizing cp() is now your hobby? What’s next….. “ed”… no wait “df”.. boy it sure would be great if I could get a 20% improvement in “ls”… I am sure these commands are limiting the number of orders/hr my business can process :)))

Didn’t that blog entry show a traditional cp(1) implementation utilizing 26% less kernel mode processor cycles? Oh well.

It’s About the Whole System
While those were words spoken in jest, it warrants a blog entry and I’ll tell you why. It is true this is an Oracle related blog and such filesystem tools as cp(1) are not in the Oracle code path. I blog about these things for two reasons: 1) a lot of my readers enjoy learning more about the platform in general and 2) many—perhaps most—Oracle systems have normal file system tools such as cp(1), compress(1) and others running while Oracle is running. For that matter, the Oracle server can call out to the same libraries these tools use for such functionality as BFILE and UTL_FILE. For that reason, I feel these topics are related to Oracle platforms. After all, a garbage-can implementation of the standard filesystem tools—and/or the kernel code paths that service them—is going to take cycles away from Oracle. Now please don’t quote me as saying the mmap()-enabled Solaris cp(1) is a “garbage-can” implementation. I’m just making the point that if such tools are implemented poorly Oracle can be affected even though they are not in the scope of a transaction. It’s about the whole system.

Legacy Code. What Comes Around…Stays Around.
Let’s not think for even a moment that the internals of such tools as ls(1) and df(1) are beyond scrutiny. Both ls(1) and df(1) use the stat(2) system call. We Oracle-minded folks often forget that there is much more unstructured data than structured so it is a good thing there are still some folks like PolyServe (HP) minding the store for the performance of such mundane topics as stat(2). Why? Well, perfect examples are the online photo operations such as Snapfish. Try having thousands of threads accessing tens of millions of files (photos) for fun. See, Snapfish uses the HP Enterprise File Services Clustered Gateway NAS powered by PolyServe. You can bet we pay attention to “mundane” topics like what ls(1) behaves like in a directory with 1, 2 or 100 million small files. The stat(2) system call is extremely important in such situations.

He’s Off His Rocker—This is an Oracle Blog.
What could this possibly have to do with Oracle? Well, if you run Oracle on a platform that only specializes in the code underpinnings of the most common server I/O (e.g., db file sequential read, db file scattered read, direct path read/write, LGWR and DBWR writes), you might not end up very happy if you have to do things that hammer the filesystem with Oracle features like UTL_FILE, BFILE, external tables, imp/exp and so forth, cp(1), tar(1), compress(1) and so on. It’s all about taking a holistic view instead of “camps” that focus on segments of the I/O stack.

As the cliché goes, standard file operations and highly specialized Oracle code paths are often joined at the hip.

Yes Direct I/O Means Concurrent Writes. Oracle Doesn’t Need Write-Ordering.

If Sir Isaac Newton was walking about today dropping apples to prove his theory of gravity, he’d feel about like I do making this blog entry. The topic? Concurrent writes on file system files with Direct I/O.

A couple of months back, I made a blog entry about BIGFILE tablespaces in ASM versus modern file systems.The controversy at hand at the time was about the dreadful OS locking overhead that must surely be associated with using large files in a file system. I spent a good deal of time tending to that blog entry pointing out that the world is no longer flat and such age-old concerns over OS locking overhead on modern file systems no longer relevant. Modern file systems support Direct I/O and one of the subtleties that seems to have been lost in the definition of Direct I/O is the elimination of the write-ordering locks that are required for regular file system access. The serialization is normally required so that if two processes should write to the same offset in the same file, one entire write must occur before the other—thus preventing fractured writes. With databases like Oracle, no two processes will write to the same offset in the same file at the same time. So why have the OS impose such locking? It doesn’t with modern file systems that support Direct I/O.

In regards to the blog entry called ASM is “not really an optional extra” With BIGFILE Tablespaces, a reader posted the following comment:

“node locks are only an issue when file metadata changes”
This is the first time I’ve heard this. I’ve had a quick scout around various sources, and I can’t find support for this statement.
All the notes on the subject that I can find show that inode/POSIX locks are also used for controlling the order of writes and the consistency of reads. Which makes sense to me….

Refer to:
http://www.ixora.com.au/notes/inode_locks.htm

Sec 5.4.4 of
http://www.phptr.com/articles/article.asp?p=606585&seqNum=4&rl=1

Sec 2.4.5 of
http://www.solarisinternals.com/si/reading/oracle_fsperf.pdf

Table 15.2 of
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=605371&seqNum=6&rl=1

Am I misunderstanding something?

And my reply:

…in short, yes. When I contrast ASM to a file system, I only include direct I/O file systems. The number of file systems and file system options that have eliminated the write-ordering locks is a very long list starting, in my experience, with direct async I/O on Sequent UFS as far back as 1991 and continuing with VxFS with Quick I/O, VxFS with ODM, PolyServe PSFS (with the DBOptimized mount option), Solaris UFS post Sol8-U3 with the forcedirectio mount option and others I’m sure. Databases do their own serialization so the file system doing so is not needed.

The ixora and solarisinternals references are very old (2001/2002). As I said, Solaris 8U3 direct I/O completely eliminates write-ordering locks. Further, Steve Adams also points out that Solaris 8U3 and Quick I/O where the only ones they were aware of, but that doesn’t mean VxFS ODM (2001), Sequent UFS (starting in 1992) and ptx/EFS, and PolyServe PSFS (2002) weren’t all supporting completely unencumbered concurrent writes.

Ari, thanks for reading and thanks for bringing these old links to my attention. Steve is a fellow Oaktable Network Member…I’ll have to let him know about this out of date stuff.

There is way too much old (and incomplete) information out there.

A Quick Test Case to Prove the Point
The following screen shot shows a shell process on one of my Proliant DL585s with Linux RHEL 4 and the PolyServe Database Utility for Oracle. The session is using the PolyServe PSFS filesystem mounted with the DBOptimized mount option which supports Direct I/O. The test consists of a single dd(1) process overwriting the first 8GB of a file that is a little over 16GB. The first invocation of dd(1) writes 2097152 4KB blocks in 283 seconds for an I/O rate of 7,410 writes per second. The next test consisted of executing 2 concurrent dd(1) processes each writing a 4GB portion of the file. Bear in mind that the age old, decrepit write-ordering locks of yester-year serialized writes. Without bypassing those write locks, two concurrent write-intensive processes cannot scale their writes on a single file. The screen shot shows that the concurrent write test achieved 12,633 writes per second. Although 12,633 represents only 85% scale-up, remember, these are physical I/Os—I have a lot of lab gear, but I’d have to look around for a LUN that can do more than 12,633 IOps and I wanted to belt out this post. The point is that on a “normal” file system, the second go around of foo.sh with two dd(1) processes would take the same amount of time to complete as the single dd(1) run. Why? Because both tests have the same amount of write payload and if the second foo.sh suffered serialization the completion times would be the same:

conc_write2.JPG


DISCLAIMER

I work for Amazon Web Services. The opinions I share in this blog are my own. I'm *not* communicating as a spokesperson for Amazon. In other words, I work at Amazon, but this is my own opinion.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 742 other followers

Oracle ACE Program Status

Click It

website metrics

Fond Memories

Copyright

All content is © Kevin Closson and "Kevin Closson's Blog: Platforms, Databases, and Storage", 2006-2015. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Kevin Closson and Kevin Closson's Blog: Platforms, Databases, and Storage with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

%d bloggers like this: