[linux-lvm] Very slow i/o after snapshotting

Zdenek Kabelac zkabelac at redhat.com
Tue Jul 9 14:18:39 UTC 2013

Dne 9.7.2013 16:04, Micky napsal(a):
>> Do you write to the snapshot ?
> Not so often but there is like 1-5% usage allocation.
>> It's known FACT that performance of old snapshot is very far from being
>> ideal - it's very simply implementation - for a having consistent system to
>> make a backup of the volume - so for backup it doesn't really matter how
>> slow is that (it just needs to remain usable)
> True. But in case of domains running on a hypervisor, the purpose of doing
> a live backup slingshots and dies! I know it's not LVM's fault but
> sluggishness is!

Well here we are at lvm list - thus discussing lvm metadata and command line 
issues -  do you see slow command line execution ?

I think you are concerned about the perfomance of dm device - which
is a level below lvm  (kernel level)

Do not take is as some excuse - just we should use correct terms.

>> I'd suggest to go with much smaller chunks - i.e. 4-8-16KB - since if you
>> update a single 512 sector  -  512KB of data has to be copied!!! so really
>> bad idea, unless you overwrite large continuous portion of a device.
> I just tried that and got 2-3% improvement.
> Here are the gritty details, if someone's interested.
>    --- Logical volume ---
>    LV Write Access        read/write
>    LV snapshot status     active destination for lvma
>    LV Status              available
>    # open                 1
>    LV Size                200.10 GiB
>    Current LE             51226
>    COW-table size         100.00 GiB

Well here is the catch I guess.

While the snapshot might be reasonable enough with sizes like 10GiB,
it's getting much much worse when it scales up.

If you intent to use  100GiB snapshot - please consider thin volumes here.
Use upstream git and report bugs if something doesn't work.
There is not going to be a fix for  old-snaps - the on-disk format it quite 
unscalable.  Thin is the real fix for your problems here.
Also note - you will get horrible start-up times for snapshot of this size...

>> And yes - if you have rotational hdd - you need to expect horrible seek
>> times as well when reading/writing from snapshot target....
> Yes, they do. But I reproduced this one with multiple machines (and kernels)!

Once again - there is no hope  old-snaps could become magically faster unless
completely rewritten - and that what's thin provisioning is basically about ;)
We've tried to make everything much faster and smarter.
So do not ask for fixing old snapshots - they are simply unfixable for large
COW sizes - it's been designed for something very different then you try to 
use it for...

>> And yes - there are some horrible Segate hdd drives (as I've seen just
>> yesterday) were 2 disk reading programs at the same time may degrade 100MB/s
>> -> 4MB/s (and there is no  dm involved)
> Haha, no doubt. Seagates' are the worst ones. IMHO, Hitachi's drives
> run cooler and
> that's what Nagios tells me!

Just simple check is how fast parallel 'dd' you get from  /dev/sda partition - 
if you get approximately halve the speed  of single 'dd' - then you have good 
enough drive (Hitachi is usually pretty good).


More information about the linux-lvm mailing list