[sheepdog] [PATCH v10 06/19] sheep: introduce sparse objects
namei.unix at gmail.com
Wed Jul 2 11:41:46 CEST 2014
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:25:37PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:16:48PM +0800, Liu Yuan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 12:09:00AM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> > > We don't need to care about a fragmentation when
> > > - the object is unlikely to be accessed sequentially, and
> This is wrong assumption, many application do access volume sequentially like
> stream based APP(audio, vedio, etc.).
> > > - the object is read-only.
> > >
> > > In that sense, we can make the objects sparse if they are not data
> > > objects and writable ones.
> > >
> > > This fixes the problem that sheepdog consumes many disk spaces for
> > > deleted vdi objects if your filesystem supports FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE.
> > I don't understand this patch. If we want sparse objects, we can just stop
> > preallocation and no need to trim objects in the hottest path. Am I missing
> > anything in the sense that in one way, we preallocate the whole object, but in
> > the other we punch hole of objects.
> Probably we should only make sparse of deleted inode objects, which is a
> placeholder and no pratical use. But for other objects, we should preallocate to
> avoid fragmentation and never try to trim objects in the hottest IO pathes. As
> far as I remember, trimming functions are problematic for erasure coding and
> cluster snapshot. Is this well-tested with EC and sha1 stuff?
More information about the sheepdog