[SUMMARY-II] VxVM Volume/UFS overhead

From: Levi Ashcol (leviashcol_at_hotpop.com)
Date: 10/28/04

  • Next message: John skreen: "Creating additional swap & separating /tmp"
    To: <sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org>
    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:13:23 +0200
    
    

    Another note from Darren Dunham:

    Traditionally, the default was 10%. However in recent versions of
    Solaris the default was changed to be smaller on bigger volumes.

    >From the Solaris 8 'newfs' man page

                     The default is ((64 Mbytes/partition size) *
                     100), rounded down to the nearest integer and
                     limited between 1% and 10%, inclusively.

    So anything over 6.4 GB on Solaris 8 should already be using a minfree
    of 1% (unless overridden).

    Thanks.

    Levi

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Levi Ashcol [mailto:leviashcol@hotpop.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 10:31 PM
    To: 'sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org'
    Subject: [SUMMARY] VxVM Volume/UFS overhead

    The original post is below.

    Thanks to:
     Darren Dunham
     Kevin Johnson
     francisco [frisco@blackant.net]
     Doug Granzow
     Nathan Dietsch
     Miller Alan

    Summary:

    1- In general, most of the Volume Manager overhead comes from
    the allocation of the private region, and from rounding effects due to
    keeping volumes aligned on cylinder boundaries. Loss of space within a
    volume tends to be an insignificant component.

    2- The UFS overhead is controlled with a factor called minfree and its
    default value is 10% of the filesystem size.

    3- The minfree space is not wasted, but it reserved for the root user.
    Any process running as root can continue to write to disk until all disk
    space is used up. This is to protect the system from accidental or
    intentional excessive disk space consumption from non-root users.

    4- Controlling the value of minfree is done when creating a filesystem
    with newfs -m or dynamically after creation of the filsystem using
    tunefs -m 1 /filesystem (where 1 is the required percentage).

    5-To know the current minfree value (percentage) of a filesystem:
      fstyp -v /dev/vx/rdsk/datadg/apps_bin | grep minfree.

    6- Decrease the minfree to 1% has nothing to do with performance as
    wrongly indicated in the tunefs man page see Sun infodoc: 15769

    Thanks

    Levi

    -----Original Message-----
    From: sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org
    [mailto:sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org] On Behalf Of Levi Ashcol
    Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:44 PM
    To: sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
    Subject: VxVM Volume/UFS overhead

    Hi Gurus,
     I have a SF280 Server connected to external EMC Storage. (Solaris
    8-108528-27) (Using VxVM VERSION: 3.2,REV=08 and UFS)

    I noticed a massive waste of disk space when creating a new concatenated
    volume and a filesystem on it.

    Look at the following:
    #df -k
    Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity
    Mounted on
       /dev/vx/dsk/datadg/apps_bin 294910784 92205081 173214625 35%
    /apps/bin
       /dev/vx/dsk/datadg/apps_data 39321424 9 35389273 1%
    /apps/data

    The first volume is around 294GB in size, however if you add the
    used/avail it will gives you
    Around 265 GB. i.e: a waste in space about 30 GB !!!
    For the second volume there is a waste in space around 4GB !!!.

    My questions:
      - Where did this spaces gone, Is this a normal behavior ? Is it logic
    for VxVM to eat 30 GB for VxVM operations ?!
      - What is the percentage of filesystem overhead from the total
    filesystem size ?
      - Are there any overheads imposed from the Volume manager and what is
    the percentage of this overhead ?
      - Any mount option or kernel parameter to correct this ?

    Here are the c/c's of the volumes:
    # vxprint -htA | grep apps_bin
    v apps_bin - ENABLED ACTIVE 629145600 SELECT -
    fsgen
    pl apps_bin-01 apps_bin ENABLED ACTIVE 629145600 CONCAT
    - RW
    sd datadg03-01 apps_bin-01 datadg03 0 214141440 0
    c6t5d208 ENA
    sd datadg04-01 apps_bin-01 datadg04 0 214141440 214141440
    c6t5d209 ENA
    sd datadg05-01 apps_bin-01 datadg05 0 200862720 428282880
    c6t5d210 ENA

    # vxprint -htA | grep apps_data
    v apps_data - ENABLED ACTIVE 83886080 SELECT -
    fsgen
    pl apps_data-01 apps_data ENABLED ACTIVE 83888640 CONCAT -
    RW
    sd datadg01-02 apps_data-01 raid_dg01 3148800 83888640 0
    c6t5d212 ENA

    I will Summarize definitely !

    Thanks

    Levi
    _______________________________________________
    sunmanagers mailing list
    sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
    http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
    _______________________________________________
    sunmanagers mailing list
    sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
    http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers


  • Next message: John skreen: "Creating additional swap & separating /tmp"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Filesystem performance overheads?
      ... > overheads that result from using a filesystem? ... > ramdisk versus using the memory as it is (raw reads and writes to memory, ... > without considering it as a ramdisk with a file system). ... Then the file system overhead would matter a lot. ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)
    • Re: ZFS - having inodes + log on seperate disk ?
      ... >>such a feature will apply to future file systems as well as current ... >>UFS will necessarily work with QFS? ... I suppose that includes the overhead of indirect ... anyone know of a filesystem in which such ...
      (comp.unix.solaris)
    • [SUMMARY] VxVM Volume/UFS overhead
      ... 2- The UFS overhead is controlled with a factor called minfree and its ... default value is 10% of the filesystem size. ... Subject: VxVM Volume/UFS overhead ... c6t5d208 ENA ...
      (SunManagers)
    • Re: Filesystem performance overheads?
      ... > know the performance loss that we would suffer using a filesystem like ... Compared to using memory ... several regions of the ramdisk filesystem. ... the overhead of using a ramdisk but it's less of a PITA. ...
      (comp.os.linux.misc)