jschoubben
e88b448145
Snapshot 9.9s -> 0.13s. Restore 10.4s -> 0.80s. Three snapshots sharing 1.36 GB instead of costing 4.8 GB. The projected four-machine reset cycle falls from ~90s, unbounded at worst, to ~15s dominated by a boot that cannot be avoided. ADR 0029's inner-loop argument holds with copy-on-write and did not without it. The consistency matters as much as the speed: three consecutive snapshots took 0.13, 0.12 and 0.13 seconds, against a dir second snapshot that never finished. One honest counter-observation recorded: launching onto the fresh copy-on-write pool was slower, 20.2s against 14.3s, because the image had to be unpacked into a pool that had never seen it. Paid once per pool, and dwarfed by what snapshotting saves, but it went the other way. Doing the measurement produced the answer to how the lab installs on a clean machine, because both failure modes appeared while doing it. Installed is not available: the daemon was present with units disabled and no group. Issue 007. Available is not adequate, and this is worse: with the storage tooling absent everything worked and snapshots were seventy-six times slower. Nothing failed, nothing warned. That is a variant the mesh has not catalogued — its usual failure is reported success and did nothing; this is reported success and did it seventy-six times slower, which no error surface catches because nothing is wrong. So the lab verifies CAPABILITY, never installation, and refuses to run degraded rather than warning — a warning about a slow inner loop is read once and ignored forever. Prerequisites may arrive from a mesh module or from the lab's own bootstrap, and the second path is required rather than convenient: a lab installable only by a mesh cannot host the development of the mesh that installs it. The lab is the second thing installed by hand, after the node host, and for the same reason: something has to be first, and pretending otherwise produces a circularity papered over by a script nobody exercises.
6.4 KiB
effort, updated
| effort | updated |
|---|---|
| 010-lab-inner-loop-cost | 2026-08-24 |
Measurements
Taken 2026-08-24 on a workstation with hardware virtualisation available, an NVMe-backed ext4 root, and 300 GB free. One virtual machine, 1 GiB memory, 2 CPUs, from a cached distribution image.
The environment, before anything ran
| Fact | Value | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Hardware virtualisation | present | virtual machines run at native speed; the choice in ADR 0016 is not paying an emulation penalty |
| Storage drivers the daemon offers | dir only |
no copy-on-write, therefore no cheap snapshot |
| Host filesystems | ext4 throughout | nothing copy-on-write to put a pool on |
| btrfs kernel module | available | the kernel can do it |
btrfs-progs |
not installed | which is the entire reason the driver is absent |
The last two rows are the finding. The daemon advertises only dir because the userspace tool
for anything better is missing — not because the host cannot do better.
Raising a machine
| Step | Time |
|---|---|
| launch call returns | 3.4 s |
| machine actually usable — a command executes on it | 14.3 s |
The gap matters for the lifecycle design: raise returning is not the same as the scenario
being ready, so the verb has to wait for the second number, not report the first. Reporting
the first would be the mesh's own recurring failure — transport reported as effect.
Snapshot and restore
| Operation | Time | Disk |
|---|---|---|
| snapshot, first | 9.9 s | +1.6 GB |
| snapshot, second | > 120 s — did not complete | — |
| restore call returns | 10.4 s | — |
| machine usable again | 20.1 s total | — |
Instance on disk before snapshotting: 1.5 GB. Snapshot directory afterwards: 1.6 GB. A dir
snapshot is a full copy — the storage cost equals the instance, and nothing is shared.
Implied copy throughput on the first snapshot is roughly 160 MB/s, which is far below what the underlying NVMe can do and is consistent with a real, durable copy rather than a metadata operation.
The second snapshot is the more troubling number. It exceeded two minutes and was still running when the observation was cut off; only the first snapshot exists. Whatever the cause — page cache exhausted by the preceding restore, writeback contention — the practical consequence is that snapshot cost here is not merely high, it is unpredictable.
What this projects to
A four-machine scenario, taking the optimistic single-machine numbers and assuming the operations are serial:
| one machine | four machines | |
|---|---|---|
| raise, to usable | 14 s | ~57 s |
| snapshot | 10 s, 1.6 GB | ~40 s, 6.4 GB |
| restore, to usable | 20 s | ~80 s |
A reset-and-rerun cycle is therefore around a minute and a half at best, and unbounded at worst, before any of the mesh's own work begins.
The judgement
This is too slow for an inner loop, and the reason is not the design.
ADR 0029 argues that making the bootstrap path the inner development loop turns the least-exercised code in the system into the most-exercised. That argument holds only while resetting is cheap. At a minute and a half a cycle, with occasional multi-minute stalls, the loop is one a person works around — and the path stays under-exercised for exactly the reason it always was.
Nothing about virtual machines causes this. Hardware virtualisation is present and the machines boot in fourteen seconds. The cost is entirely the storage driver, and the driver is absent because one userspace package is not installed on the host.
The mesh already has the mechanism for that: a module declares a package, and a hook makes it a
working capability — which is precisely what was just done for the virtualisation daemon
itself, and what 04-ISSUES/007
is about.
The fix, measured
The comparison was subsequently run. One package — btrfs-progs, no dependencies — installed by
hand, the daemon restarted so it re-detected drivers, a copy-on-write pool created on a loop
file, and the identical image launched onto it.
| Operation | dir |
copy-on-write | |
|---|---|---|---|
| snapshot | 9.9 s, then > 120 s | 0.13 s | ~76× faster, and consistent |
| snapshot again | — | 0.12 s | |
| snapshot a third time | — | 0.13 s | |
| restore call | 10.4 s | 0.80 s | ~13× faster |
| restore, to usable | 20.1 s | 10.5 s | the remainder is boot, which is irreducible |
| three snapshots, storage | ~4.8 GB | 1.36 GB total, shared | cost is the delta, not the disk |
The fix is real, and larger than expected. Snapshot goes from ten seconds to a tenth of a
second, and — more importantly — from wildly variable to flat. Three consecutive snapshots
took 0.13, 0.12 and 0.13 seconds. On dir the second snapshot never finished.
Storage stops scaling with the machine and starts scaling with what changed: three snapshots of a 1.5 GB instance occupied 1.36 GB in total, because they share.
What it projects to
A four-machine reset-and-rerun cycle, the operation the inner loop repeats most:
dir |
copy-on-write | |
|---|---|---|
| snapshot the scenario | ~40 s, 6.4 GB | ~0.5 s, delta-sized |
| restore it | ~40 s + boot | ~3 s + boot |
| cycle | ~90 s, unbounded at worst | ~15 s, dominated by boot |
At fifteen seconds, dominated by a boot that cannot be avoided, the inner loop is viable and ADR 0029's argument holds. At ninety it did not.
One honest counter-observation
Launching onto the fresh copy-on-write pool was slower — 20.2 s to usable against 14.3 s — because the image had to be unpacked into a pool that had never seen it. That cost is paid once per pool, not per scenario, and it is dwarfed by what snapshotting saves. But it is a real number and it went the other way.
State this left behind
Recorded because hand-made state is exactly what the mesh's rules exist to prevent, and it must be declared properly rather than left as an artefact of a measurement:
btrfs-progsinstalled by hand. Its installation regenerated the boot initramfs, a side effect worth knowing about.- The daemon restarted once, to re-detect drivers.
- The test pool and instance were removed; the pool the lab actually needs does not exist.