Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 01:24:24 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RFC: copy_file_range(3) Message-ID: <YTBPR01MB3966DE95F967F892EA2738EFDD380@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <YTBPR01MB3966BA18F43F7B6353171E67DD380@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <CAOtMX2iFZZpoj%2Bap21rrju4hJoip6ZoyxEiCB8852NeH7DAN0Q@mail.gmail.com> <YTBPR01MB39666188FC89399B0D632FE8DD3D0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAOtMX2gMYdcx0CUC1Mky3ETFr1JkBbYzn17i11axSW=HRTL7OA@mail.gmail.com> <YTBPR01MB3966C1D4D10BE836B37955F5DD3D0@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <CAOtMX2jHMRD0Hno03f2dqjJToR152u8d-_40GM_%2BBvNPkN_smA@mail.gmail.com>, <YTBPR01MB3966BA18F43F7B6353171E67DD380@YTBPR01MB3966.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oh, and I set=0A=
vfs.nfs.maxcopyrange=3D134217728=0A=
on the server.=0A=
=0A=
The current default is only 10Mbytes, but I think 128Mbytes=0A=
is a more reasonable setting.=0A=
=0A=
rick=0A=
ps: The server and client are only somewhat old Dell Latitude 6420=0A=
laptops, so the tests were not done on server grade hardware.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
________________________________________=0A=
From: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org <owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>=
on behalf of Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>=0A=
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:18 PM=0A=
To: Alan Somers=0A=
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers; Konstantin Belousov=0A=
Subject: Re: RFC: copy_file_range(3)=0A=
=0A=
Alan Somers wrote:=0A=
[lots of stuff snipped]=0A=
>1) In order to quickly respond to a signal, a program must use a modest le=
n with >copy_file_range=0A=
For the programs you have mentioned, I think the only signal handling would=
=0A=
be termination (<ctrl>C or SIGTERM if you prefer).=0A=
I'm not sure what is a reasonable response time for this.=0A=
I'd like to hear comments from others?=0A=
- 1sec, less than 1sec, a few seconds, ...=0A=
=0A=
> 2) If a hole is larger than len, that will cause vn_generic_copy_file_ran=
ge to=0A=
> truncate the output file to the middle of the hole. Then, in the next in=
vocation,=0A=
> truncate it again to a larger size.=0A=
> 3) The result is a file that is not as sparse as the original.=0A=
Yes. So, the trick is to use the largest "len" you can live with, given how=
long you=0A=
are willing to wait for signal processing.=0A=
=0A=
> For example, on UFS:=0A=
> $ truncate -s 1g sparsefile=0A=
Not a very interesting sparse file. I wrote a little program to create one.=
=0A=
> $ cp sparsefile sparsefile2=0A=
> $ du -sh sparsefile*=0A=
> 96K sparsefile=0A=
> 32M sparsefile2=0A=
>=0A=
> My idea for a userland wrapper would solve this problem by using=0A=
> SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA to copy holes in their entirety, and use copy_file_ra=
nge for=0A=
> everything else with a modest len. Alternatively, we could eliminate the=
need for=0A=
> the wrapper by enabling copy_file_range for every file system, and making=
=0A=
> vn_generic_copy_file_range interruptible, so copy_file_range can be calle=
d with=0A=
> large len without penalizing signal handling performance.=0A=
=0A=
Well, I ran some quick benchmarks using the attached programs, plus "cp" bo=
th=0A=
before and with your copy_file_range() patch.=0A=
copya - Does what I think your plan is above, with a limit of 2Mbytes for "=
len".=0A=
copyb -Just uses copy_file_range() with 128Mbytes for "len".=0A=
=0A=
I first created the sparse file with createsparse.c. It is admittedly a wor=
st case,=0A=
creating alternating holes and data blocks of the minimum size supported by=
=0A=
the file system. (I ran it on a UFS file system created with defaults, so t=
he minimum=0A=
hole size is 32Kbytes.)=0A=
The file is 1Gbyte in size with an Allocation size of 524576 ("ls -ls").=0A=
=0A=
I then ran copya, copyb, old-cp and new-cp. For NFS, I redid the mount befo=
re=0A=
each copy to avoid data caching in the client.=0A=
Here's what I got:=0A=
Elapsed time #RPCs Allocat=
ion size ("ls -ls" on server)=0A=
NFSv4.2=0A=
copya 39.7sec 16384copy+32768seek 524576=0A=
copyb 10.2sec 104copy 524=
576=0A=
old-cp 21.9sec 16384read+16384write 1048864=0A=
new-cp 10.5sec 1024copy 5245=
76=0A=
=0A=
NFSv4.1=0A=
copya 21.8sec 16384read+16384write 1048864=0A=
copyb 21.0sec 16384read+16384write 1048864=0A=
old-cp 21.8sec 16384read+16384write 1048864=0A=
new-cp 21.4sec 16384read+16384write 1048864=0A=
=0A=
Local on the UFS file system=0A=
copya 9.2sec n/a =
524576=0A=
copyb 8.0sec n/a =
524576=0A=
old-cp 15.9sec n/a =
1048864=0A=
new-cp 7.9sec n/a =
524576=0A=
=0A=
So, for a NFSv4.2 mount, using SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE is definitely=0A=
a performance hit, due to all the RPC rtts.=0A=
Your patched "cp" does fine, although a larger "len" reduces the=0A=
RPC count against the server.=0A=
All variants using copy_file_range() retain the holes.=0A=
=0A=
For NFSv4.1, it (not surprisingly) doesn't matter, since only NFSv4.2=0A=
supports SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE and VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE().=0A=
=0A=
For UFS, everything using copy_file_range() works pretty well and=0A=
retains the holes.=0A=
Although "copya" is guaranteed to retain the holes, it does run noticably=
=0A=
slower than the others. Not sure why? Does the extra SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE=0A=
syscalls cost that much?=0A=
=0A=
The limitation of not using SEEK_DATA/SEEK_HOLE is that you will not=0A=
retain holes that straddle the byte range copied by two subsequent=0A=
copy_file_range(2) calls.=0A=
--> This can be minimized by using a large "len", but that large "len"=0A=
results in slower response to signal handling.=0A=
=0A=
I've attached the little programs, so you can play with them.=0A=
(Maybe try different sparse schemes/sizes? It might be fun to=0A=
make the holes/blocks some random multiple of hole size up=0A=
to a limit?)=0A=
=0A=
rick=0A=
ps: In case he isn't reading hackers these days, I've added kib@=0A=
as a cc. He might know why UFS is 15% slower when SEEK_HOLE=0A=
SEEK_DATA is used.=0A=
=0A=
=0A=
-Alan=0A=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTBPR01MB3966DE95F967F892EA2738EFDD380>