Re: Readahead value 128K? (was Re: Drastic Slowdown of 'fseek()'

[Marr <marr at flex dot com>]

Note: Sent again, separately, with reduced recipients, due to "too many 
recipients" anti-spam restrictions on 'libc-alpha@gnu.org' mailing list:

On Monday 27 March 2006 1:50pm, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Thanks Marr.
>
> My concern here is with the users who have no idea what fseek is, and
> just see their apps getting slow.  libc is to my mind doing the clearly
> incorrect thing here.
>
> Is there a libc developers mailing list, maybe we should try them if
> Ulrich is no longer active in libc maintaining?

Good point. I've found a 'glibc' developers' mailing list, so I'm including 
them on this reply. Hopefully someone there will pick up on this thread and 
respond.

Bill Marr

> Marr wrote:
> >Greetings, Ulrich, Hans, et al,
> >
> >*** Please CC: me on replies -- I'm not subscribed.
> >
> >After some more testing and some input (off-list) from others, here is a
> >summary of this problem and its various work-arounds to date....
> >
> >On Monday 27 February 2006 4:53pm, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>runs like a dog on 2.6's reiserfs.  libc is doing a (probably) 128k read
> >>>on every fseek.
> >>>
> >>>- There may be a libc stdio function which allows you to tune this
> >>> behaviour.
> >
> >It turns out that there is just such a function. Thanks to some sage
> >(off-list) advice from Gerold Jury, this is an effective way to switch the
> >file's stream to "unbuffered" mode:
> >
> >   setvbuf( inp_fh, 0, _IONBF, 0 );
> >
> >This results in incredible speedups on the ReiserFS+2.6.x setup, without
> > the need to even use the 'nolargeio=1' mount option. Basically, we're
> > going from 128KB read-ahead on every 'fseek()' call to no read-ahead.
> >
> >>>- libc should probably be a bit more defensive about this anyway -
> >>> plainly the filesystem is being silly.
> >>
> >>I really thank you for isolating the problem, but I don't see how you
> >>can do other than blame glibc for this.  The recommended IO size is only
> >>relevant to uncached data, and glibc is using it regardless of whether
> >>or not it is cached or uncached.   Do I misunderstand something myself
> >>here?
> >
> >To date, I've not seen anyone address this implicit question/issue that
> > Hans raised. To wit: Is the "recommended I/O size" only relevant to
> > _uncached_ data???
> >
> >If not, then anyone using ReiserFS on a 2.6.x kernel had best be well
> > aware that 128KB read-aheads are going to occur with every 'fseek()'
> > call, degrading performance drastically. This seems like a good reason
> > for the ReiserFS folks to re-evaluate the use of 128KB as the default
> > value for read-ahead.
> >
> >Alternatively, if "recommended I/O size" _is_ (intended to be) only
> > relevant to _uncached_ data, then the question becomes this: Is 'glibc'
> > erroneously using that recommended size regardless of whether the data is
> > cached or uncached?
> >
> >Ulrich, we'd really appreciate your input on this matter. Please advise.
> > Even a simple reply of "buzz off" would be useful at this point! ;^)
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >In summary, the problem still exists, but any of the following
> > work-arounds are effective, ordered here from best to worst:
> >
> >(A) Use a 'setvbuf()' call in the target application to disable (or
> > reduce) buffering on the input stream.
> >
> >Under certain conditions, this should be useful even when not using
> > ReiserFS and/or when not running a 2.6.x kernel. However, it's almost
> > essential (currently) with ReiserFS and 2.6.x kernels, for apps which do
> > a lot of file seeks using ANSI C file I/O (i.e. 'fseek()').
> >
> >OR
> >
> >(B) Use the `nolargeio=1' option when mounting a ReiserFS partition under
> >2.6.x kernels. This effectively changes the recommended I/O read-ahead
> > after each 'fseek()' call from 128KB to 4KB.
> >
> >Unlike option (A) above, this is useful for situations where you don't
> > have access to the source code of the target application(s).
> >
> >However, Andrew Morton mentioned this possible negative side-effect:
> >>  This will alter the behaviour of every reiserfs filesystem in the
> >>  machine.  Even the already mounted ones.
> >
> >OR
> >
> >(C) Don't use ReiserFS (v3) under 2.6.x kernels (for apps which do a lot
> > of file seeks using ANSI C file I/O).
> >
> >For example, the 'ext2'/'ext3' filesystems seem to still use the 4KB
> >read-ahead, resulting in _much_ better performance when performing
> > multiple seeks (outside the range of the 'read-ahead' setting).
> >
> >------------------------------
> >
> >Of course, the unmentioned option (which basically bypasses the whole
> > issue) is to convert the underlying application to use raw, unbuffered
> > Unix file I/O (i.e. 'lseek() + read()' [or even just 'pread()', as
> > suggested by Andrew Morton]) instead of ANSI C file I/O ('fseek() +
> > fread()'), but that is considered out-of-scope for purposes of this
> > discussion.
> >
> >-----------------------------
> >
> >Thanks to all who supplied input. Special thanks to Andrew Morton and
> > Gerold Jury who supplied what effectively turned out to be the
> > most-useful work-arounds.
> >
> >*** Please CC: me on replies -- I'm not subscribed.
> >
> >Bill Marr