-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On my second test (a much longer one), it took nearly an hour, but a few messages have popped up over a 20 window. Still far less than I have been seeing. - ---------------- Robert LeBlanc PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > I'll capture another set of logs. Is there any other debugging you > want turned up? I've seen the same thing where I see the message > dispatched to the secondary OSD, but the message just doesn't show up > for 30+ seconds in the secondary OSD logs. > - ---------------- > Robert LeBlanc > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >>> I can't think of anything. In my dev cluster the only thing that has >>> changed is the Ceph versions (no reboot). What I like is even though >>> the disks are 100% utilized, it is preforming as I expect now. Client >>> I/O is slightly degraded during the recovery, but no blocked I/O when >>> the OSD boots or during the recovery period. This is with >>> max_backfills set to 20, one backfill max in our production cluster is >>> painful on OSD boot/recovery. I was able to reproduce this issue on >>> our dev cluster very easily and very quickly with these settings. So >>> far two tests and an hour later, only the blocked I/O when the OSD is >>> marked out. We would love to see that go away too, but this is far >> (me too!) >>> better than what we have now. This dev cluster also has >>> osd_client_message_cap set to default (100). >>> >>> We need to stay on the Hammer version of Ceph and I'm willing to take >>> the time to bisect this. If this is not a problem in Firefly/Giant, >>> you you prefer a bisect to find the introduction of the problem >>> (Firefly/Giant -> Hammer) or the introduction of the resolution >>> (Hammer -> Infernalis)? Do you have some hints to reduce hitting a >>> commit that prevents a clean build as that is my most limiting factor? >> >> Nothing comes to mind. I think the best way to find this is still to see >> it happen in the logs with hammer. The frustrating thing with that log >> dump you sent is that although I see plenty of slow request warnings in >> the osd logs, I don't see the requests arriving. Maybe the logs weren't >> turned up for long enough? >> >> sage >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> - ---------------- >>> Robert LeBlanc >>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >>> >> OK, an interesting point. Running ceph version 9.0.3-2036-g4f54a0d >>> >> (4f54a0dd7c4a5c8bdc788c8b7f58048b2a28b9be) looks a lot better. I got >>> >> messages when the OSD was marked out: >>> >> >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961040 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 81 : >>> >> cluster [WRN] 17 slow requests, 3 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> 34.476006 secs >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961056 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 82 : >>> >> cluster [WRN] slow request 32.913474 seconds old, received at >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:14.047475: osd_op(client.600962.0:474 >>> >> rbd_data.338102ae8944a.0000000000005270 [read 3302912~4096] 8.c74a4538 >>> >> ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961066 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 83 : >>> >> cluster [WRN] slow request 32.697545 seconds old, received at >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:14.263403: osd_op(client.600960.0:583 >>> >> rbd_data.3380f74b0dc51.000000000001ee75 [read 1016832~4096] 8.778d1be3 >>> >> ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961074 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 84 : >>> >> cluster [WRN] slow request 32.668006 seconds old, received at >>> >> 2015-10-06 11:52:14.292942: osd_op(client.600955.0:571 >>> >> rbd_data.3380f74b0dc51.0000000000019b09 [read 1034240~4096] 8.e87a6f58 >>> >> ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered >>> >> >>> >> But I'm not seeing the blocked messages when the OSD came back in. The >>> >> OSD spindles have been running at 100% during this test. I have seen >>> >> slowed I/O from the clients as expected from the extra load, but so >>> >> far no blocked messages. I'm going to run some more tests. >>> > >>> > Good to hear. >>> > >>> > FWIW I looked through the logs and all of the slow request no flag point >>> > messages came from osd.163... and the logs don't show when they arrived. >>> > My guess is this OSD has a slower disk than the others, or something else >>> > funny is going on? >>> > >>> > I spot checked another OSD at random (60) where I saw a slow request. It >>> > was stuck peering for 10s of seconds... waiting on a pg log message from >>> > osd.163. >>> > >>> > sage >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>> >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >>> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFAzRCRDmVDuy+mK58QAASRYP/jrbKy5mptq/cSqJvB47 >>> >> F/gEatsqU4/TwyIJg137DQTkONbHKnLgCZqsJLnCZRH8fFqtvY6g/Q/AA7Ks >>> >> ouo5gvbjKM7pOm/uUn8kU44Xe15f/bkVHvWBECZzg8YJwinPAisp5R0m1HBC >>> >> HLvsbeqV00m72TyfsZX4aj7lHdyvcdcIH2EVgX/db092VVXczK4q2gRoNr0Y >>> >> 77BEr2Y/gPj5LM4b/aDG5AWY8dJZRlNz+B1CyLS+kIDXSaAbzul2UbAG6jNE >>> >> KJEVxndMPfHLIdwg55+q8VTMIjqXcCM47cQhWFrKChgVD8byJxpc6E0TqOxs >>> >> 1gtNE8AILoCSYKnwQZan+TBDGxki7rQxzMdNI+NLfhy1Mwd3lSCPsDtD7W/i >>> >> tzNTr6aGz+wr+OPDQV5zrzLaPZYF3FLWN4n6RYNfnDramYzD76v+7kjdW4dE >>> >> 5UVCtE7KGLCZ21fu6sln1b9q6lYXNtohAmAunIdqpo3FmHusRySyZzYKu1+9 >>> >> zg/LHiArD/ddjkPxVWCTFBS17g/bESRcv2MsA30GS8J6k1zlQaLX5KeGg6Ql >>> >> WJSmW8gFfEbXj/7JTrVtQWTdgjsegaySFnDisTWUR/hEM/NuKii4xfjI32M/ >>> >> luUMXHZ8lTHk9C8MfZcpyPGvwp2FliD9LqaWOVPWtWZJcerEWcZVlEApg4qb >>> >> fo5a >>> >> =ahEi >>> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> ---------------- >>> >> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> >> > On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> With some off-list help, we have adjusted >>> >> >> osd_client_message_cap=10000. This seems to have helped a bit and we >>> >> >> have seen some OSDs have a value up to 4,000 for client messages. But >>> >> >> it does not solve the problem with the blocked I/O. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> One thing that I have noticed is that almost exactly 30 seconds elapse >>> >> >> between an OSD boots and the first blocked I/O message. I don't know >>> >> >> if the OSD doesn't have time to get it's brain right about a PG before >>> >> >> it starts servicing it or what exactly. >>> >> > >>> >> > I'm downloading the logs from yesterday now; sorry it's taking so long. >>> >> > >>> >> >> On another note, I tried upgrading our CentOS dev cluster from Hammer >>> >> >> to master and things didn't go so well. The OSDs would not start >>> >> >> because /var/lib/ceph was not owned by ceph. I chowned the directory >>> >> >> and all OSDs and the OSD then started, but never became active in the >>> >> >> cluster. It just sat there after reading all the PGs. There were >>> >> >> sockets open to the monitor, but no OSD to OSD sockets. I tried >>> >> >> downgrading to the Infernalis branch and still no luck getting the >>> >> >> OSDs to come up. The OSD processes were idle after the initial boot. >>> >> >> All packages were installed from gitbuilder. >>> >> > >>> >> > Did you chown -R ? >>> >> > >>> >> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/infernalis/doc/release-notes.rst#upgrading-from-hammer >>> >> > >>> >> > My guess is you only chowned the root dir, and the OSD didn't throw >>> >> > an error when it encountered the other files? If you can generate a debug >>> >> > osd = 20 log, that would be helpful.. thanks! >>> >> > >>> >> > sage >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Thanks, >>> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>> >> >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWE0F5CRDmVDuy+mK58QAAaCYQAJuFcCvRUJ46k0rYrMcc >>> >> >> YlrSrGwS57GJS/JjaFHsvBV7KTobEMNeMkSv4PTGpwylNV9Dx4Ad74DDqX4g >>> >> >> 6hZDe0rE+uEI7tW9Lqp+MN7eaU2lDuwLt/pOzZI14jTskUYTlNi3HjlN67mQ >>> >> >> aiX1rbrJL6FFkuMOn/YqHpMbxI5ZOUZc1s7RDhASOPIs4z/CxpDfluW6fZA/ >>> >> >> y8C+pW6zzS9U/6jZwtGhBq4dvDBO41Lxb9WOehD8Aa/Qt6XNDzGw2KEkEkw7 >>> >> >> 8dBc7UFa2Wx3Tnzy238a/nKhtz6O6OrHsroA+HGWwCoxPWjOsz/xOoOmfwp+ >>> >> >> ALkY3id+t2uJEqzbL8/MgJ2RV1A+AZ7W1VWIJUOkDz0wR+KxQsxduHoD6rQy >>> >> >> zg0fj2KSAlmVusYOPM1s1+jBsqNF3wcNxpbRoVuFqk0xMgGPrIdUNdZHg6bs >>> >> >> D5sfkjNKexFe0ifFJ0cfv6UaGIKv4dK2eq3jUKgXHfh/qZmJbEB+zHaqJNyg >>> >> >> CN6w6xu1FHLeVobKAWe5ZzKY5lxw6b8YG+ce/E2dvW73gSASPTvtv68gaT04 >>> >> >> 2SPF9Ql0fERL5EDY9Pc4MHpQVcS0XxxJA69CgnWgaG6fzq2eY7fALeMBVWlB >>> >> >> fRj3zQwqJls/X8JZ3c4P4G0R6DP9bmMwGr++oYc3gWGrvgzxw3N7+ornd0jd >>> >> >> GdXC >>> >> >> =Aigq >>> >> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> ---------------- >>> >> >> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> > Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I have eight nodes running the fio job rbd_test_real to different RBD >>> >> >> > volumes. I've included the CRUSH map in the tarball. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I stopped one OSD process and marked it out. I let it recover for a >>> >> >> > few minutes and then I started the process again and marked it in. I >>> >> >> > started getting block I/O messages during the recovery. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > The logs are located at http://162.144.87.113/files/ushou1.tar.xz >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Thanks, >>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> > Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>> >> >> > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWEZRcCRDmVDuy+mK58QAALbEQAK5pFiixJarUdLm50zp/ >>> >> >> > 3AGgGBPrieExKmoZZLCoMGfOLfxZDbN2ybtopKDQDfrTqndE/6Xi9UXqTOdW >>> >> >> > jDc9U1wusgG0CKPsY1SMYnB9akvaDwtdh5q5k4VpN2zsG9R6lRojHeNQR3Nf >>> >> >> > 56QevJL4/e5lC3sLhVnxXXi2XKnHCVOHT+PYgNour2ZWt6OTLoFFxuSU3zLN >>> >> >> > OtfXgrFiiNF0mrDpm0gg2l8a8N5SwP9mM233S2U/JiGAqsqoqkfd0okjDenC >>> >> >> > ksesU/n7zordFpfLN3yjL6+X9pQ4YA6otZrq4wWtjWKO/H0b+6iIsf/AE131 >>> >> >> > R6a4Vufndpd3Ce+FNfM+iu3FmKk0KVfDAaF/tIP6S6XUzGVMAbpvpmqNL17o >>> >> >> > boh3wPZEyK+7KiF4Qlt2KoI/FV24Yj8XiyMnKin3MbMYbammb4ER977VH7iI >>> >> >> > sZyelNPSsYmmw/MF+AkA5KVgzQ4DAPflaejIgC5uw3dYKrn2AQE5CE9nN8Gz >>> >> >> > GVVaGItu1Bvrz21QoT9o5v0dZ85zttFvtrKIYgSi4mdpC6XkzUbg9s9EB1/T >>> >> >> > SEY+fau7W7TtiLpzCAIQ3zDvgsvkx2P6tKg5U8e93LVv9B+YI8i8mUxxv1j5 >>> >> >> > PHFi7KTgRUPm1FPMJDSyzvOgqyMj9AzaESl1Na6k529ILFIcyfko0niTT1oZ >>> >> >> > 3EPx >>> >> >> > =UDIV >>> >> >> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > ---------------- >>> >> >> > Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> >> >> >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> We are still struggling with this and have tried a lot of different >>> >> >> >>> things. Unfortunately, Inktank (now Red Hat) no longer provides >>> >> >> >>> consulting services for non-Red Hat systems. If there are some >>> >> >> >>> certified Ceph consultants in the US that we can do both remote and >>> >> >> >>> on-site engagements, please let us know. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> This certainly seems to be network related, but somewhere in the >>> >> >> >>> kernel. We have tried increasing the network and TCP buffers, number >>> >> >> >>> of TCP sockets, reduced the FIN_WAIT2 state. There is about 25% idle >>> >> >> >>> on the boxes, the disks are busy, but not constantly at 100% (they >>> >> >> >>> cycle from <10% up to 100%, but not 100% for more than a few seconds >>> >> >> >>> at a time). There seems to be no reasonable explanation why I/O is >>> >> >> >>> blocked pretty frequently longer than 30 seconds. We have verified >>> >> >> >>> Jumbo frames by pinging from/to each node with 9000 byte packets. The >>> >> >> >>> network admins have verified that packets are not being dropped in the >>> >> >> >>> switches for these nodes. We have tried different kernels including >>> >> >> >>> the recent Google patch to cubic. This is showing up on three cluster >>> >> >> >>> (two Ethernet and one IPoIB). I booted one cluster into Debian Jessie >>> >> >> >>> (from CentOS 7.1) with similar results. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> The messages seem slightly different: >>> >> >> >>> 2015-10-03 14:38:23.193082 osd.134 10.208.16.25:6800/1425 439 : >>> >> >> >>> cluster [WRN] 14 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> >> >>> 100.087155 secs >>> >> >> >>> 2015-10-03 14:38:23.193090 osd.134 10.208.16.25:6800/1425 440 : >>> >> >> >>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.041999 seconds old, received at >>> >> >> >>> 2015-10-03 14:37:53.151014: osd_op(client.1328605.0:7082862 >>> >> >> >>> rbd_data.13fdcb2ae8944a.000000000001264f [read 975360~4096] >>> >> >> >>> 11.6d19c36f ack+read+known_if_redirected e10249) currently no flag >>> >> >> >>> points reached >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I don't know what "no flag points reached" means. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Just that the op hasn't been marked as reaching any interesting points >>> >> >> >> (op->mark_*() calls). >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Is it possible to gather a lot with debug ms = 20 and debug osd = 20? >>> >> >> >> It's extremely verbose but it'll let us see where the op is getting >>> >> >> >> blocked. If you see the "slow request" message it means the op in >>> >> >> >> received by ceph (that's when the clock starts), so I suspect it's not >>> >> >> >> something we can blame on the network stack. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> sage >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> The problem is most pronounced when we have to reboot an OSD node (1 >>> >> >> >>> of 13), we will have hundreds of I/O blocked for some times up to 300 >>> >> >> >>> seconds. It takes a good 15 minutes for things to settle down. The >>> >> >> >>> production cluster is very busy doing normally 8,000 I/O and peaking >>> >> >> >>> at 15,000. This is all 4TB spindles with SSD journals and the disks >>> >> >> >>> are between 25-50% full. We are currently splitting PGs to distribute >>> >> >> >>> the load better across the disks, but we are having to do this 10 PGs >>> >> >> >>> at a time as we get blocked I/O. We have max_backfills and >>> >> >> >>> max_recovery set to 1, client op priority is set higher than recovery >>> >> >> >>> priority. We tried increasing the number of op threads but this didn't >>> >> >> >>> seem to help. It seems as soon as PGs are finished being checked, they >>> >> >> >>> become active and could be the cause for slow I/O while the other PGs >>> >> >> >>> are being checked. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> What I don't understand is that the messages are delayed. As soon as >>> >> >> >>> the message is received by Ceph OSD process, it is very quickly >>> >> >> >>> committed to the journal and a response is sent back to the primary >>> >> >> >>> OSD which is received very quickly as well. I've adjust >>> >> >> >>> min_free_kbytes and it seems to keep the OSDs from crashing, but >>> >> >> >>> doesn't solve the main problem. We don't have swap and there is 64 GB >>> >> >> >>> of RAM per nodes for 10 OSDs. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Is there something that could cause the kernel to get a packet but not >>> >> >> >>> be able to dispatch it to Ceph such that it could be explaining why we >>> >> >> >>> are seeing these blocked I/O for 30+ seconds. Is there some pointers >>> >> >> >>> to tracing Ceph messages from the network buffer through the kernel to >>> >> >> >>> the Ceph process? >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> We can really use some pointers no matter how outrageous. We've have >>> >> >> >>> over 6 people looking into this for weeks now and just can't think of >>> >> >> >>> anything else. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 >>> >> >> >>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWEDY1CRDmVDuy+mK58QAARgoP/RcoL1qVmg7qbQrzStar >>> >> >> >>> NK80bqYGeYHb26xHbt1fZVgnZhXU0nN0Dv4ew0e/cYJLELSO2KCeXNfXN6F1 >>> >> >> >>> prZuzYagYEyj1Q1TOo+4h/nOQRYsTwQDdFzbHb/OUDN55C0QGZ29DjEvrqP6 >>> >> >> >>> K5l6sAQzvQDpUEEIiOCkS6pH59ira740nSmnYkEWhr1lxF/hMjb6fFlfCFe2 >>> >> >> >>> h1djM0GfY7vBHFGgI3jkw0BL5AQnWe+SCcCiKZmxY6xiR70FWl3XqK5M+nxm >>> >> >> >>> iq74y7Dv6cpenit6boMr6qtOeIt+8ko85hVMh09Hkaqz/m2FzxAKLcahzkGF >>> >> >> >>> Fh/M6YBzgnX7QBURTC4YQT/FVyDTW3JMuT3RKQdaX6c0iiOsVdkE+iyidWyY >>> >> >> >>> Hr1KzWU23Ur9yBfZ39Y43jrsSiAEwHnKjSqMowSGljdTysNEAAZQhlqZIoHb >>> >> >> >>> JlgpB39ugkHI1H5fZ5b2SIDz32/d5ywG4Gay9Rk6hp8VanvIrBbev+JYEoYT >>> >> >> >>> 8/WX+fhueHt4dqUYWIl3HZ0CEzbXbug0xmFvhrbmL2f3t9XOkDZRbAjlYrGm >>> >> >> >>> lswiJMDueY8JkxSnPvCQrHXqjbCcy9rMG7nTnLFz98rTcHNCwtpv0qVYhheg >>> >> >> >>> 4YRNRVMbfNP/6xsJvG1wVOSQPwxZSPqJh42pDqMRePJl3Zn66MTx5wvdNDpk >>> >> >> >>> l7OF >>> >> >> >>> =OI++ >>> >> >> >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> > We dropped the replication on our cluster from 4 to 3 and it looks >>> >> >> >>> > like all the blocked I/O has stopped (no entries in the log for the >>> >> >> >>> > last 12 hours). This makes me believe that there is some issue with >>> >> >> >>> > the number of sockets or some other TCP issue. We have not messed with >>> >> >> >>> > Ephemeral ports and TIME_WAIT at this point. There are 130 OSDs, 8 KVM >>> >> >> >>> > hosts hosting about 150 VMs. Open files is set at 32K for the OSD >>> >> >> >>> > processes and 16K system wide. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Does this seem like the right spot to be looking? What are some >>> >> >> >>> > configuration items we should be looking at? >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> > ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> > Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> >> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> We were able to only get ~17Gb out of the XL710 (heavily tweaked) >>> >> >> >>> >> until we went to the 4.x kernel where we got ~36Gb (no tweaking). It >>> >> >> >>> >> seems that there were some major reworks in the network handling in >>> >> >> >>> >> the kernel to efficiently handle that network rate. If I remember >>> >> >> >>> >> right we also saw a drop in CPU utilization. I'm starting to think >>> >> >> >>> >> that we did see packet loss while congesting our ISLs in our initial >>> >> >> >>> >> testing, but we could not tell where the dropping was happening. We >>> >> >> >>> >> saw some on the switches, but it didn't seem to be bad if we weren't >>> >> >> >>> >> trying to congest things. We probably already saw this issue, just >>> >> >> >>> >> didn't know it. >>> >> >> >>> >> - ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> >> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> FWIW, we've got some 40GbE Intel cards in the community performance cluster >>> >> >> >>> >>> on a Mellanox 40GbE switch that appear (knock on wood) to be running fine >>> >> >> >>> >>> with 3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64. We did get feedback from Intel that older >>> >> >> >>> >>> drivers might cause problems though. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Here's ifconfig from one of the nodes: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> ens513f1: flags=4163 mtu 1500 >>> >> >> >>> >>> inet 10.0.10.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.0.10.255 >>> >> >> >>> >>> inet6 fe80::6a05:caff:fe2b:7ea1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20 >>> >> >> >>> >>> ether 68:05:ca:2b:7e:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) >>> >> >> >>> >>> RX packets 169232242875 bytes 229346261232279 (208.5 TiB) >>> >> >> >>> >>> RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 >>> >> >> >>> >>> TX packets 153491686361 bytes 203976410836881 (185.5 TiB) >>> >> >> >>> >>> TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Mark >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 09/23/2015 01:48 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> OK, here is the update on the saga... >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> I traced some more of blocked I/Os and it seems that communication >>> >> >> >>> >>>> between two hosts seemed worse than others. I did a two way ping flood >>> >> >> >>> >>>> between the two hosts using max packet sizes (1500). After 1.5M >>> >> >> >>> >>>> packets, no lost pings. Then then had the ping flood running while I >>> >> >> >>> >>>> put Ceph load on the cluster and the dropped pings started increasing >>> >> >> >>> >>>> after stopping the Ceph workload the pings stopped dropping. >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> I then ran iperf between all the nodes with the same results, so that >>> >> >> >>> >>>> ruled out Ceph to a large degree. I then booted in the the >>> >> >> >>> >>>> 3.10.0-229.14.1.el7.x86_64 kernel and with an hour test so far there >>> >> >> >>> >>>> hasn't been any dropped pings or blocked I/O. Our 40 Gb NICs really >>> >> >> >>> >>>> need the network enhancements in the 4.x series to work well. >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Does this sound familiar to anyone? I'll probably start bisecting the >>> >> >> >>> >>>> kernel to see where this issue in introduced. Both of the clusters >>> >> >> >>> >>>> with this issue are running 4.x, other than that, they are pretty >>> >> >> >>> >>>> differing hardware and network configs. >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAvOzCRDmVDuy+mK58QAApOMP/1xmCtW++G11qcE8y/sr >>> >> >> >>> >>>> RkXguqZJLc4czdOwV/tjUvhVsm5qOl4wvQCtABFZpc6t4+m5nzE3LkA1rl2l >>> >> >> >>> >>>> AnARPOjh61TO6cV0CT8O0DlqtHmSd2y0ElgAUl0594eInEn7eI7crz8R543V >>> >> >> >>> >>>> 7I68XU5zL/vNJ9IIx38UqdhtSzXQQL664DGq3DLINK0Yb9XRVBlFip+Slt+j >>> >> >> >>> >>>> cB64TuWjOPLSH09pv7SUyksodqrTq3K7p6sQkq0MOzBkFQM1FHfOipbo/LYv >>> >> >> >>> >>>> F42iiQbCvFizArMu20WeOSQ4dmrXT/iecgTfEag/Zxvor2gOi/J6d2XS9ckW >>> >> >> >>> >>>> byEC5/rbm4yDBua2ZugeNxQLWq0Oa7spZnx7usLsu/6YzeDNI6kmtGURajdE >>> >> >> >>> >>>> /XC8bESWKveBzmGDzjff5oaMs9A1PZURYnlYADEODGAt6byoaoQEGN6dlFGe >>> >> >> >>> >>>> LwQ5nOdQYuUrWpJzTJBN3aduOxursoFY8S0eR0uXm0l1CHcp22RWBDvRinok >>> >> >> >>> >>>> UWk5xRBgjDCD2gIwc+wpImZbCtiTdf0vad1uLvdxGL29iFta4THzJgUGrp98 >>> >> >> >>> >>>> sUqM3RaTRdJYjFcNP293H7/DC0mqpnmo0Clx3jkdHX+x1EXpJUtocSeI44LX >>> >> >> >>> >>>> KWIMhe9wXtKAoHQFEcJ0o0+wrXWMevvx33HPC4q1ULrFX0ILNx5Mo0Rp944X >>> >> >> >>> >>>> 4OEo >>> >> >> >>> >>>> =P33I >>> >> >> >>> >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> >>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> >>>> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> This is IPoIB and we have the MTU set to 64K. There was some issues >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> pinging hosts with "No buffer space available" (hosts are currently >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> configured for 4GB to test SSD caching rather than page cache). I >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> found that MTU under 32K worked reliable for ping, but still had the >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> blocked I/O. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> I reduced the MTU to 1500 and checked pings (OK), but I'm still seeing >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> the blocked I/O. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> - ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Samuel Just wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> I looked at the logs, it looks like there was a 53 second delay >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> between when osd.17 started sending the osd_repop message and when >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> osd.13 started reading it, which is pretty weird. Sage, didn't we >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> once see a kernel issue which caused some messages to be mysteriously >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> delayed for many 10s of seconds? >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> Every time we have seen this behavior and diagnosed it in the wild it >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> has >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> been a network misconfiguration. Usually related to jumbo frames. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> sage >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> What kernel are you running? >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> -Sam >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> OK, looping in ceph-devel to see if I can get some more eyes. I've >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> extracted what I think are important entries from the logs for the >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> first blocked request. NTP is running all the servers so the logs >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> should be close in terms of time. Logs for 12:50 to 13:00 are >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> available at http://162.144.87.113/files/ceph_block_io.logs.tar.xz >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.500374 - osd.17 gets I/O from client >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.557160 - osd.17 submits I/O to osd.13 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.557305 - osd.17 submits I/O to osd.16 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.573711 - osd.16 gets I/O from osd.17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.595716 - osd.17 gets ondisk result=0 from osd.16 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.640631 - osd.16 reports to osd.17 ondisk result=0 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926691 - osd.17 reports slow I/O > 30.439150 sec >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:59.790591 - osd.13 gets I/O from osd.17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:59.812405 - osd.17 gets ondisk result=0 from osd.13 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:56:02.941602 - osd.13 reports to osd.17 ondisk result=0 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> In the logs I can see that osd.17 dispatches the I/O to osd.13 and >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd.16 almost silmutaniously. osd.16 seems to get the I/O right away, >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> but for some reason osd.13 doesn't get the message until 53 seconds >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> later. osd.17 seems happy to just wait and doesn't resend the data >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> (well, I'm not 100% sure how to tell which entries are the actual data >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> transfer). >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> It looks like osd.17 is receiving responses to start the communication >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> with osd.13, but the op is not acknowledged until almost a minute >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> later. To me it seems that the message is getting received but not >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> passed to another thread right away or something. This test was done >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> with an idle cluster, a single fio client (rbd engine) with a single >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> thread. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> The OSD servers are almost 100% idle during these blocked I/O >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> requests. I think I'm at the end of my troubleshooting, so I can use >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> some help. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Single Test started about >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:52:36 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926680 osd.17 192.168.55.14:6800/16726 56 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 30.439150 secs >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926699 osd.17 192.168.55.14:6800/16726 57 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.439150 seconds old, received at >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.487451: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1388 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.0000000000000545 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.bbf3e8ff ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,16 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697904 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 7 : cluster >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] 2 slow requests, 2 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 30.379680 secs >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697918 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 8 : cluster >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] slow request 30.291520 seconds old, received at 2015-09-22 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 12:55:06.406303: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1384 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.0000000000000541 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.5fb2123f ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697927 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 9 : cluster >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] slow request 30.379680 seconds old, received at 2015-09-22 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 12:55:06.318144: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1382 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000053f >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.312e69ca ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,14 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.998275 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6804/4574 130 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 30.954212 secs >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.998286 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6804/4574 131 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.954212 seconds old, received at >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:57:33.044003: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1873 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000070d >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.e69870d4 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 16,17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.759826 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 10 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 30.704367 secs >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.759840 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 11 : >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.704367 seconds old, received at >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:57:33.055404: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1874 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000070e >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.f7635819 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Server IP addr OSD >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodev - 192.168.55.11 - 12 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodew - 192.168.55.12 - 13 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodex - 192.168.55.13 - 16 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodey - 192.168.55.14 - 17 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodez - 192.168.55.15 - 14 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> nodezz - 192.168.55.16 - 15 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> fio job: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> [rbd-test] >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> readwrite=write >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> blocksize=4M >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #runtime=60 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> name=rbd-test >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #readwrite=randwrite >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #bssplit=4k/85:32k/11:512/3:1m/1,4k/89:32k/10:512k/1 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #rwmixread=72 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #norandommap >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #size=1T >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #blocksize=4k >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> ioengine=rbd >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> rbdname=test2 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> pool=rbd >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> clientname=admin >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> iodepth=8 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #numjobs=4 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #thread >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #group_reporting >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #time_based >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #direct=1 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> #ramp_time=60 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAcaKCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAPMsQAKBnS94fwuw0OqpPU3/z >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> tL8Z6TVRxrNigf721+2ClIu4LIH71bupDc3DgrrysQmmqGuvEMn68spmasWu >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> h9I/CqqgRpHqe4lUVoUEjyWA9/6Dbb6NiHSdpJ6p5jpGc8kZCvNS+ocDgFOl >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 903i0M0E9eEMeci5O/hrMrx1FG8SN2LS8nI261aNHMOwQK0bw8wWiCJEvqVB >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> sz1/+jK1BJoeIYfaT9HfUXBAvfo/W3tY/vj9KbJuZJ5AMpeYPvEHu/LAr1N7 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> FzzUc7a6EMlaxmSd0ML49JbV0cY9BMDjfrkKEQNKlzszlEHm3iif98QtsxbF >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> pPJ0hZ0G53BY3k976OWVMFm3WFRWUVOb/oiLF8H6PCm59b4LBNAg6iPNH1AI >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 5XhEcPpg06M03vqUaIiY9P1kQlvnn0yCXf82IUEgmg///vhxDsHWmcwClLEn >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> B0VszouStTzlMYnc/2vlUiI4gFVeilWLMW00VGTWV+7V1oIzIYvWHyl2QpBq >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 4/ZwVjQ43qLfuDTS4o+IJ4ztOMd26vIv6Mn6WVwKCjoCXJc8ajywR9Dy+6lL >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> o8oJ+tn7hMc9Qy1iBhu3/QIP4WCsUf9RVeu60oahNEpde89qW32S9CZlrJDO >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> gf4iTryRjkAhdmZIj9JiaE8jQ6dvN817D9cqs/CXKV9vhzYoM7p5YWHghBKB >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> J3hS >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> =0J7F >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> ---------------- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there some way to tell in the logs that this is happening? >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> You can search for the (mangled) name _split_collection >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> seeing much I/O, CPU usage during these times. Is there some way to >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> prevent the splitting? Is there a negative side effect to doing so? >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Bump up the split and merge thresholds. You can search the list for >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> this, it was discussed not too long ago. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> We've had I/O block for over 900 seconds and as soon as the sessions >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> are aborted, they are reestablished and complete immediately. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> The fio test is just a seq write, starting it over (rewriting from >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> the >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> beginning) is still causing the issue. I was suspect that it is not >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> having to create new file and therefore split collections. This is >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> on >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> my test cluster with no other load. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> Hmm, that does make it seem less likely if you're really not creating >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> new objects, if you're actually running fio in such a way that it's >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> not allocating new FS blocks (this is probably hard to set up?). >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll be doing a lot of testing today. Which log options and depths >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>>> would be the most helpful for tracking this issue down? >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> If you want to go log diving "debug osd = 20", "debug filestore = >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> 20", >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> "debug ms = 1" are what the OSD guys like to see. That should spit >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> out >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> everything you need to track exactly what each Op is doing. >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>>> -Greg >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> -- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAdMSCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAoEgP/AqpH7i1BLpoz6fTlfWG >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> a6swvF8xvsyR15PDiPINYT0N7MgoikikGrMmhWpJ6utEr1XPW0MPFgzvNIsf >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> a1eMtNzyww4rAo6JCq6BtjmUsSKmOrBNhRNr6It9v4Nv+biqZHkiY8x/rRtV >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> s9z0cv3Q9Wqa6y/zKZg3H1XtbtUAx0r/DUwzSsP3omupZgNyaKkCgdkil9Vc >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> iyzBxFZU4+qXNT2FBG4dYDjxSHQv4psjvKR3AWXSN4yEn286KyMDjFrsDY5B >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> izS3h603QPoErqsUQngDE8COcaTAHHrV7gNJTikmGoNW6oQBjFq/z/zindTz >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> caXshVQQ+OTLo/qzJM8QPswh0TGU74SVbDkTq+eTOb5pBhQbp+42Pkkqh7jj >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> efyyYgDzpB1WrWRbUlWMNqmnjq7DT3lnAtuHyKbkwVs8x3JMPEiCl6PBvJbx >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> GnNSCqgDJrpb4fHQ2iqfQeh8Ai6AL1C1Ai19RZPrAUhpDW0/DbUvuoKSR8m7 >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> glYYuH3hpy+oPYRhFcHm2fpNJ3u9npyk2Dai9RpzQ+mWmp3xi7becYmL482H >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> +WyvLeY+8AiJQDpA0CdD8KeSlOC9bw5TPmihAIn9dVTJ1O2RlapCLqL3YAJg >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> pGyDs8ercTEJLmvEyElj5XWh5DarsGscd2LELNS/UpyuYurbPcyPKUQ0uPjp >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> gcZm >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> =CjwB >>> >> >> >>> >>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>> -- >>> >> >> >>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> >> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 >>> >> >> >>> >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAv3QCRDmVDuy+mK58QAABr4QAJcQj8zjl606aMdkmQG7 >>> >> >> >>> >> S46iMXVav/Tv2os9GCUsQmMPx2u1w3/WmPfjByd6Divczfo0JLDDqrbsqre2 >>> >> >> >>> >> lq0GNK6e8fq6FXHhPpnL+t4uFV4UZ289cma3yklRqEBDXWHlP59Hu7VpxC5l >>> >> >> >>> >> 0MIcCg4wM5VM/LkrfcMven5em5CnjyFJYbActGzw9043rZoyUwCM+eL7sotl >>> >> >> >>> >> JYHMcNWnqwdt8TLFDhUfVGiAQyV8/6E33CuCNUEuFGdtiBKzs9IZadOI8Ce0 >>> >> >> >>> >> dod2DQNyFSvomqNq6t0DuTCSA+pT8uuks2O0NcrHjoqwIWVkxQGPYlpbpckf >>> >> >> >>> >> nxQdVM7vkqapVeQ0qUZx43Db9A5wDTC3PaEfVJZPZzWsSDjh9z7o6qHs3Kvp >>> >> >> >>> >> krfyS+dJaZ3tOYAP1VFDfasj06sOTFu3mfGYToKA75zz5HN7QZ13Zau/qhDu >>> >> >> >>> >> FHxsgk4oIXJsjj22LiSpoiigH5Ls+aVqtIbg8/vWp+EO6pK1fovEtJVeGAfE >>> >> >> >>> >> tLOdxfJJLVjMCAScFG9BRl1ePPLeptivKV0v9ruWsTpn+Q96VtqAR5GQCkYE >>> >> >> >>> >> hFrlxM+oIzHeArhhiIxSPCYLlnzxoD5IYXmTrWUYBCGvlY1mrI3j80mZ4VTj >>> >> >> >>> >> BErsSlqnjUyFKmaI7YNKyARCloMroz3wqdy/wpg/63Io62nmh5IyY+WO8hPo >>> >> >> >>> >> ae22 >>> >> >> >>> >> =AX+L >>> >> >> >>> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> >>> ceph-users mailing list >>> >> >> >>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> ceph-users mailing list >>> >> >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>> >>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFBoOCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA7oYP/1yVPx66DovoUJiSDunA >>> NjIXWnKzx77aQMDwueZ0woC8PvgsX4JpLVH90Gh1MOJWyt2L4Qp+n60loSiI >>> Q5xU1NMYiup8YPlHqyslBxtqCPhcN1R8XhxN212R4uyVBIgjulkkEFiiQf8R >>> 5Uq5rDy+Vqmbla3enekV9vpAJQhVdfxvhdnN9/tSC3I5JZm+6VW9PGmwvTL4 >>> HK5UIz8luvtBWCWXYm2m7ZCUKYq0oWfdVDGEpEV473yyYwoVyvTBFuNNNbpu >>> kdxZ422Ztv2yj5phIQgU88Q/W5NY0awW25+16AMZNb6zCbF06hvQ9SjpydGu >>> 6vokj3uCOImMZpdJlyMuj6IjIkB27bnJer7zVLM3tDzftPzwT8ia8M3LvMWE >>> sD9Dl2jx5EdFZYPMxoHF4WnD4SQtUxr+cpcI/Ij96RfXz1cMbMbVdZbWXkfz >>> gEY46SXuM8yMi7wzJHwd4kI9q8A+ZZDpsDuTyavMr1rqZX61H+Gzc3rNI7lc >>> lkJ63hfYMPCdYggnUT8mAF+cwXxq66SclwbmBYM8lbrEPuuTZzZp7veLJr5g >>> /PO1abPcJVYq5ZP7i1iELEac6WvDWcJgImvkF+JZAN57URNpdJA03KsVkIt7 >>> H5n1Y8zUv7QcVMwHo/Os30vfiPmUHxg9DFbtUU8otpcf3g+udDggWHeuiZiG >>> 6Kfk >>> =/gR6 >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFChuCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAfNsQAMGNu925hGNsCTuY4X7V > x71rdicFIn41I12KYtmhWl0U/V9GpUwLkOAKzeAcQiK2FgBBYRle0pANqE2K > Thf4YBJ5oEXZ72WOB14jaggiQkZwiTZLo6c69JLZADaM5NEXD/2mM77HyVLN > SP5v7FSqtnlzA53aZ7hUZn5r20VfOl/peOJGJz7C393hy3gBjr+P4LKsLE2L > QO0lNj4mJZVnVXbxqJp9Q8xn86vmfXK2sofqbAv2wjkT2C8gM9DkgLF+UJjc > mCSL9EUDFHD82BGsWzvYYFci686bIUC9IxJXKLORYKjzH3ueGHhiK3/apIi4 > 7DA0159nObAVNNz8AvvJnnjK94KrfcqpD3inFT7++WiNWTWbYljC7eukEM8L > QyrcMnbuomjT87I9wB9zNwa/Pt+AepdwSf7qAv1VVYrop3nJxp8bPVCzvkrr > MV/gxv3esOF68nOoQ9yt8DyHFihpg0nqSPjY3xDS7qZ05u3jnWN4rgkNxmyR > rOpwjVLUINAkVjfAM2FL2sW6wX1tKPd947CgMrAgcX0ChwZ1xYzt6xdS0p+R > gciSgw7nfCvwFmpou0DnqUdTN3K0zvM9zDhQ/b9u7JW3CEZLJXMoi99C4n3g > RfilE0rvScnx7uTI7mo94Pwy0MYFdGw04sNtFjwjIhRFPSsMUu+NSHDJe26U > JFPi > =ofgq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFDDOCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA0kUP/1rfRQa5Us9b/VCvKrhk BYrde1/FBybKBVXsuXVU8Dq124A1e4L682AhmQPUeVP8PQLoqS/VFSl0h7i6 28AzydDaBTTjnrp6ZzVbtmKtm8WhmtSTFvWTlu/yJmRXAht9YozmFCByBfIY GYvOhZzjvbxBKfwnwq97QkS7xfY2tss/BmaOvSVTX7naYaOF+HRwZMSt+BF4 9vg9BLSL3Aic0BnvdM64TWkDaHp/3gwGSmyMn8Q2Sa9CqUTddKQx2HXN6doo gIyxCj+dIw2Pt73u2NoiYv8ZhTuS3QYM4n0rRBxj8Wr/EeNwGAOwdDSgbOxf OvDyozzmCpQyW3h/nkdQJW5mWsJmyDIiGxHDdUn7Vgemg+Bbod0ACdoJiwct /BIRVQe2Ee1nZQFoKBOhvaWO6+ePJR7CVfLjMkZBTzKZBjt2tfkq17G5KTdS EsehvG/+vfFJkANL5Xh6eo9ptlHbFW8I/44pvUtGi2JwsN487l56XR9DqEKM 7Cmj9Ox205YxjqcBjhWIJQTok99lvrhDX9d7HHxIeTcmouvqPz4LTcCySRtC xE/GcEGAAYWGPTwf9u8ULm9Rh2Z90OnKpqtCtuuWiwRRL9VU/tLlvqmHvEZM 73qhiLQZka5I72B2SAEtJnDt2sX3NJ4unvH4zWKLRFTTm4M0qk6xUL1JfqNz JYNo =msX2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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
