Re: Crash and strange things on MDS

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

 



On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 02:47:13PM -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Kevin Decherf <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:25:59PM -0800, Gregory Farnum wrote:
> > Yes, there is a dump of 100,000 events for this backtrace in the linked
> > archive (I need 7 hours to upload it).
> 
> Can you just pastebin the last couple hundred lines? I'm mostly
> interested if there's anything from the function which actually caused
> the assert/segfault. Also, the log should compress well and get much
> smaller!

Sent in pm.

And yes, I have a good compression rate but...

   % ls -lh                             
   total 38G
   -rw-r--r-- 1 kdecherf kdecherf 3.3G Feb 11 18:36 cc-ceph-log.tar.gz
   -rw------- 1 kdecherf kdecherf  66M Feb  4 17:57 ceph.log
   -rw-r--r-- 1 kdecherf kdecherf 3.5G Feb  4 14:44 ceph-mds.b.log
   -rw-r--r-- 1 kdecherf kdecherf  31G Feb  5 15:55 ceph-mds.c.log
   -rw-r--r-- 1 kdecherf kdecherf  27M Feb 11 19:46 ceph-osd.14.log

;-)

> > The distribution is heterogeneous: we have a folder of ~17G for 300k
> > objects, another of ~2G for 150k objects and a lof of smaller directories.
> 
> Sorry, you mean 300,000 files in the single folder?
> If so, that's definitely why it's behaving so badly — your folder is
> larger than your maximum cache size settings, and so if you run an
> "ls" or anything the MDS will read the whole thing off disk, then
> instantly drop most of the folder from its cache. Then re-read again
> for the next request to list contents, etc etc.

The biggest top-level folder contains 300k files but splitted into
several subfolders (a subfolder does not contain more than 10,000 files
at its level).

> > Are you talking about the mds bal frag and mds bal split * settings?
> > Do you have any advice about the value to use?
> If you set "mds bal frag = true" in your config, it will split up
> those very large directories into smaller fragments and behave a lot
> better. This isn't quite as stable (thus the default to "off"), so if
> you have the memory to just really up your cache size I'd start with
> that and see if it makes your problems better. But if it doesn't,
> directory fragmentation does work reasonably well and it's something
> we'd be interested in bug reports for. :)

I will try it, thanks!

-- 
Kevin Decherf - @Kdecherf
GPG C610 FE73 E706 F968 612B E4B2 108A BD75 A81E 6E2F
http://kdecherf.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[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