[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: External Journal scenario - good idea?

> Hope things go well,
> Cheers
> Jeremy
> _______________________________________________
> Ext3-users mailing list
> Ext3-users redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users

Hi Jeremy,

Just wanted to take a minute to say thanks for all your advice with our situation.

It ended up being a little bit of everything, our problem:

Originally, the whole filesystem (minus /boot) was on one huge partition (and therefore one really busy journal). We split up the filesystem like this:

/ \
/boot \
/tmp \
/usr Separate ext3 partitions on external RAID unit
/var / with symbolic links pointing /home and a few
/var/log / non-standard directory names to go under
/storage1 / /storage1 - our large file area, so they
don't have to fit under the / filesystem.

/intraid1 Separate Linux Software mdp-style (Neil Brown
patch to make partitionable arrays of drives)
RAID1 pair of internal drives for the NFS-served
mailboxes, and soon-to-be MySQL database. This
is running in data=journal mode, to cause NFS
sync to be satisfied when data is written to the

Originally I did split off /usr/local as a separate mount point/fs and put all the big storage dirs under that. But then I realized that there were several things under /usr/local (like Apache) that I didn't really
want being stuck in a busy filesystem. The /usr/local tree was only taking up 75MB anyway, so I put it back under /usr, and remounted the
big partition as /storage1. (the MySQL RPM pkg puts the database under
/var/lib/mysql, that is, until I customize the spec file and put it where I want it to go, under /ideraid1).

Splitting up the filesystem made a HUGE difference in write performance and file access in general. The system could actually pay attention to the /proc/sys/vm/bdflush tweeks, and the server doesn't peg itself anymore trying to write everything to disk.

I tested RAID1, RAID0, RAID0+1, and RAID5 arrays on the external unit. Write performance was better, particularly in how much bus activity it took to write the data to the external array, with RAID 0, 1, and 0+1 arrays, but something I found along the way made RAID5 write performance on big write operations a lot better too... (and may be why my 2.4.19 kernel build crashed so miserably on me, same types of bus errors and stuff)...

My Promise UltraTrak100-TX8 doesn't like having SCSI disconnect enabled for its SCSI ID in the controller BIOS (Adaptec 7899 U160 onboard). Since this is the only SCSI device on the bus at this time, I disabled "allow disconnect" for its SCSI ID, and found that it allowed mke2fs to complete writing the inode tables on the large partition. Until I did this, the SCSI bus would hang, reset, and otherwise act ugly. Would really be a bummer if this unit can't work well with "allow disconnect" enabled, because if (WHEN) I try to add more SCSI devices to this channel, disabling disconnect for the RAID unit will likely not be an option. Guess I better keep that AHA2940U2W around... ;) I noticed the same heavy bus activity light with the 2940U2W on the old server, but since this Promise unit is only Ultra2-LVD (80) anyway, it would be better to put this thing on its own bus if/when I put U160 SCSI drives in the server.

Just doing the above two things straightened things out enough to allow the server to continue serving the NFS mailbox export well, even with one of us copying large sets of files (big and little) to the server. The way this panned out, we had not yet put the mailboxes on separate spindles. But we were already in much better shape.

During "torture testing" (BOTH of us copying huge sets of files to the server at the same time, while also sending and retrieving emails with large attachments), NFS mailbox service was pretty bad. The mail/webserver frontends had no problem queueing the mesages on their local delivery queue, but couldn't hit the NFS mounts to deliver them to the mailboxes. Little messages could get through, but big ones were "no dice". Webmail was a joke, since the frontends couldn't hit the mailboxes.

We never both copy files to the file server at the same time like this, but I wanted to see what it could handle. Everything ran great with only one of us copying big sets of files. (But... but... this is a dual-1.4GHz Tualatin serverworks machine... I want to see that HIGH PERFORMANCE!!) ;)

I finally got the other RAID1 pair of 40GB IDE drives ready (on a 66MHz-capable PCI IDE controller), and the mount points and symlinks taken care of, so we could put the mailboxes on separate spindles. While I was at it, I set up /etc/fstab to mount that array partition as data=journal. The mailboxes being on separate drives made all the difference in the world. Now BOTH of us can "samba" to our hearts' content, copying huge sets of files to the server, and the server keeps right on serving up the mailboxes to the mail/web frontends. Running like a top. Still, we never both do big file copy operations to the server at the same time. But's it's nice to know the system can handle it now. ;) If all goes well and it does not represent a gross misuse of available funds, I hope to get some high-RPM U160 drives spinning out mailboxes someday, and save the IDE drives for less performance-critical machines.

Thanks again for your help Jeremy. We are running great now. Still want to look at external journals, but we can wait a bit on that.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]