Re: ceph on btrfs [was Re: ceph on non-btrfs file systems]

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

 



2011/10/25 Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:56:48PM +0200, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> 2011/10/24 Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:06:49AM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
>> >> [adding linux-btrfs to cc]
>> >>
>> >> Josef, Chris, any ideas on the below issues?
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011, Christian Brunner wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > - When I run ceph with btrfs snaps disabled, the situation is getting
>> >> > slightly better. I can run an OSD for about 3 days without problems,
>> >> > but then again the load increases. This time, I can see that the
>> >> > ceph-osd (blkdev_issue_flush) and btrfs-endio-wri are doing more work
>> >> > than usual.
>> >>
>> >> FYI in this scenario you're exposed to the same journal replay issues that
>> >> ext4 and XFS are.  The btrfs workload that ceph is generating will also
>> >> not be all that special, though, so this problem shouldn't be unique to
>> >> ceph.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Can you get sysrq+w when this happens?  I'd like to see what btrfs-endio-write
>> > is up to.
>>
>> Capturing this seems to be not easy. I have a few traces (see
>> attachment), but with sysrq+w I do not get a stacktrace of
>> btrfs-endio-write. What I have is a "latencytop -c" output which is
>> interesting:
>>
>> In our Ceph-OSD server we have 4 disks with 4 btrfs filesystems. Ceph
>> tries to balance the load over all OSDs, so all filesystems should get
>> an nearly equal load. At the moment one filesystem seems to have a
>> problem. When running with iostat I see the following
>>
>> Device:         rrqm/s   wrqm/s     r/s     w/s   rsec/s   wsec/s
>> avgrq-sz avgqu-sz   await  svctm  %util
>> sdd               0.00     0.00    0.00    4.33     0.00    53.33
>> 12.31     0.08   19.38  12.23   5.30
>> sdc               0.00     1.00    0.00  228.33     0.00  1957.33
>> 8.57    74.33  380.76   2.74  62.57
>> sdb               0.00     0.00    0.00    1.33     0.00    16.00
>> 12.00     0.03   25.00 19.75 2.63
>> sda               0.00     0.00    0.00    0.67     0.00     8.00
>> 12.00     0.01   19.50  12.50   0.83
>>
>> The PID of the ceph-osd taht is running on sdc is 2053 and when I look
>> with top I see this process and a btrfs-endio-writer (PID 5447):
>>
>>   PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
>>  2053 root      20   0  537m 146m 2364 S 33.2 0.6 43:31.24 ceph-osd
>>  5447 root      20   0     0    0    0 S 22.6 0.0 19:32.18 btrfs-endio-wri
>>
>> In the latencytop output you can see that those processes have a much
>> higher latency, than the other ceph-osd and btrfs-endio-writers.
>>
>
> I'm seeing a lot of this
>
>        [schedule]      1654.6 msec         96.4 %
>                schedule blkdev_issue_flush blkdev_fsync vfs_fsync_range
>                generic_write_sync blkdev_aio_write do_sync_readv_writev
>                do_readv_writev vfs_writev sys_writev system_call_fastpath
>
> where ceph-osd's latency is mostly coming from this fsync of a block device
> directly, and not so much being tied up by btrfs directly.  With 22% CPU being
> taken up by btrfs-endio-wri we must be doing something wrong.  Can you run perf
> record -ag when this is going on and then perf report so we can see what
> btrfs-endio-wri is doing with the cpu.  You can drill down in perf report to get
> only what btrfs-endio-wri is doing, so that would be best.  As far as the rest
> of the latencytop goes, it doesn't seem like btrfs-endio-wri is doing anything
> horribly wrong or introducing a lot of latency.  Most of it seems to be when
> running the dleayed refs and having to read in blocks.  I've been suspecting for
> a while that the delayed ref stuff ends up doing way more work than it needs to
> be per task, and it's possible that btrfs-endio-wri is simply getting screwed by
> other people doing work.
>
> At this point it seems like the biggest problem with latency in ceph-osd is not
> related to btrfs, the latency seems to all be from the fact that ceph-osd is
> fsyncing a block dev for whatever reason.  As for btrfs-endio-wri it seems like
> its blowing a lot of CPU time, so perf record -ag is probably going to be your
> best bet when it's using lots of cpu so we can figure out what it's spinning on.

Attached is a perf-report. I have included the whole report, so that
you can see the difference between the good and the bad
btrfs-endio-wri.

Thanks,
Christian

Attachment: perf.report.bz2
Description: BZip2 compressed data


[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux