shall I use BTRFS sub-volumes for top-level directories ?
To support the Gentoo Linux ecosystem I do maintain a server as a tinderbox. I create chroot images based on various Gentoo minmal ISO images. I usually run 4 chroot image jobs in parallel. The chroots are full-filled over days/weeks with the compiled output. Issues during that are filed into Gentoo's bugzilla.
If an image is "full" (~35 GB with many files + directories in it) or completely bricked I create a new one of the same type. The old is kept for weeks/months to further serve to bug reports questions. But old images are rarely accessed usually.
Because deleting a chroot image takes awfully long and b/c I experience iowait spikes even if the 3 TB drive isn't filled by more than 50% I do wonder, if it would make sense to create a btrfs subvolume for each chroot image ? The deletion of a subvolume should be fast compared to recursivly deleting a 35 GB file system structure, right ?
(And BTW what's about re-balancing of the BTRFS-tree during the daily usage: wouldn't this profit from that too ?
Signature · 5 lines
Toralf pgp key: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 0076 E94E -- "; the past is all dirty and cruel in the modern popular imagination, with the exception of the Romans, who are just cruel" Ian Mortimer, 2008, "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England"
Quoted 11 lines · Toralf Förster
To support the Gentoo Linux ecosystem I do maintain a server as a tinderbox. I create chroot images based on various Gentoo minmal ISO images. I usually run 4 chroot image jobs in parallel. The chroots are full-filled over days/weeks with the compiled output. Issues during that are filed into Gentoo's bugzilla.
If an image is "full" (~35 GB with many files + directories in it) or completely bricked I create a new one of the same type. The old is kept for weeks/months to further serve to bug reports questions. But old images are rarely accessed usually.
Quoted 6 lines
Because deleting a chroot image takes awfully long and b/c I experience iowait spikes even if the 3 TB drive isn't filled by more than 50% I do wonder, if it would make sense to create a btrfs subvolume for each chroot image ?
The deletion of a subvolume should be fast compared to recursivly deleting a 35 GB file system structure, right ?
Unfortunately, this isn't entirely the case… Deleting a subvolume actually triggers a background garbage-collecting thread to run in the kernel (named "btrfs-cleaner") which goes recursively through the deleted tree to unallocate the files.
It will probably save a bit of IO compared to doing it with "rm -r", because there is less metadata updating. (You'll probably see that the "btrfs-transaction" process has high disk io during "rm -r", since it has to commit metadata periodically while the delete is still in progress.)
Unfortunately the IO scheduling on btrfs-cleaner currently isn't great, so it'll likely still cause io spikes, reducing performance of other applications while it runs.
As with all things, it's probably best if you just try it and see!
Quoted 2 lines
(And BTW what's about re-balancing of the BTRFS-tree during the daily usage: wouldn't this profit from that too ?
All subvolumes share the same allocated space for metadata and data, so using subvolumes vs. directories currently won't make any difference regarding rebalancing.
Signature · 1 line
Calvin Walton <[email protected]>
Quoted 1 line · Calvin Walton
As with all things, it's probably best if you just try it and see!
After the a week both the iowait spikes and the mean value of iowait cycles are decreased - so it was worth here to switch to btrfs subvolumes.
Signature · 5 lines
Toralf pgp key: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 0076 E94E -- "; the past is all dirty and cruel in the modern popular imagination, with the exception of the Romans, who are just cruel" Ian Mortimer, 2008, "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England"
Quoted 30 lines · Calvin Walton
Quoted 11 lines · Toralf Förster
To support the Gentoo Linux ecosystem I do maintain a server as a tinderbox. I create chroot images based on various Gentoo minmal ISO images. I usually run 4 chroot image jobs in parallel. The chroots are full-filled over days/weeks with the compiled output. Issues during that are filed into Gentoo's bugzilla.
If an image is "full" (~35 GB with many files + directories in it) or completely bricked I create a new one of the same type. The old is kept for weeks/months to further serve to bug reports questions. But old images are rarely accessed usually.
Quoted 6 lines
Because deleting a chroot image takes awfully long and b/c I experience iowait spikes even if the 3 TB drive isn't filled by more than 50% I do wonder, if it would make sense to create a btrfs subvolume for each chroot image ?
The deletion of a subvolume should be fast compared to recursivly deleting a 35 GB file system structure, right ?Unfortunately, this isn't entirely the case… Deleting a subvolume actually triggers a background garbage-collecting thread to run in the kernel (named "btrfs-cleaner") which goes recursively through the deleted tree to unallocate the files.
It will probably save a bit of IO compared to doing it with "rm -r", because there is less metadata updating. (You'll probably see that the "btrfs-transaction" process has high disk io during "rm -r", since it has to commit metadata periodically while the delete is still in progress.)
Quoted 6 lines
Unfortunately the IO scheduling on btrfs-cleaner currently isn't great, so it'll likely still cause io spikes, reducing performance of other applications while it runs.
As with all things, it's probably best if you just try it and see!
Pff - deleting a directory took over 30 minutes before. Now using subvolumes the same is done in a 1/2 min. And even if there would be back ground jobs now - the system is still responsive.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
(And BTW what's about re-balancing of the BTRFS-tree during the daily usage: wouldn't this profit from that too ?
All subvolumes share the same allocated space for metadata and data, so using subvolumes vs. directories currently won't make any difference regarding rebalancing.
Signature · 5 lines
Toralf pgp key: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 0076 E94E -- "; the past is all dirty and cruel in the modern popular imagination, with the exception of the Romans, who are just cruel" Ian Mortimer, 2008, "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England"