The error above occurs when I am sending MOSOp to the replicas, and I have to fix that first. For the consistency, we are still using the Primary OSD as a control center. That is, the client always goes to Primary OSD to ask for a write lock, then write the replica. Sugang On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, they are actually different types with different encodings and > different contents. The client doesn't really have the information > needed to build a MSG_OSD_REPOP. Your best bet will be to send an > MOSDOp to the replicas and hack up a write path that makes that work. > > How do you plan to address the consistency problems? > -Sam > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Sugang Li <sugangli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So, to start with, I think one naive way is to make the replica think >> it receives an op from the primary OSD, which actually comes from the >> client. And the branching point looks like started from >> OSD::dispatch_op_fast, where handle_op or handle_replica_op is called >> based on the type of the request. So my question is, at the client >> side, is there a way that I could set the corresponding variables >> referred by "op->get_req()->get_type()" to MSG_OSD_SUBOP or >> MSG_OSD_REPOP? >> >> Sugang >> >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Parallel read will be a *lot* easier since read-from-replica already >>> works. Write to replica, however, is tough. The write path uses a >>> lot of structures which are only populated on the primary. You're >>> going to have to hack up most of the write path to bypass the existing >>> replication machinery. Beyond that, maintaining consistency will >>> obviously be a challenge. >>> -Sam >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Sugang Li <sugangli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> My goal is to achieve parallel write/read from the client instead of >>>> the primary OSD. >>>> >>>> Sugang >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> I may be misunderstanding your goal. What are you trying to achieve? >>>>> -Sam >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Well, that assert is asserting that the object is in the pool that the >>>>>> pg operating on it belongs to. Something very wrong must have >>>>>> happened for it to be not true. Also, replicas have basically none of >>>>>> the code required to handle a write, so I'm kind of surprised it got >>>>>> that far. I suggest that you read the debug logging and read the OSD >>>>>> op handling path. >>>>>> -Sam >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Sugang Li <sugangli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> Yes, I understand that. I was introduced to Ceph only 1 month ago, but >>>>>>> I have the basic idea of Ceph communication pattern now. I have not >>>>>>> make any changes to OSD yet. So I was wondering what is purpose of >>>>>>> this "assert(oid.pool == static_cast<int64_t>(info.pgid.pool()))", and >>>>>>> to change the code in OSD, what are the main aspects I should pay >>>>>>> attention to? >>>>>>> Since this is only a research project, the implementation does not >>>>>>> have to be very sophisticated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know my question is kinda too broad, any hints or suggestions will >>>>>>> be highly appreciated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sugang >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> Oh, that's a much more complicated change. You are going to need to >>>>>>>> make extensive changes to the OSD to make that work. >>>>>>>> -Sam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Sugang Li <sugangli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Sam, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for the quick reply. The main modification I made is to call >>>>>>>>> calc_target within librados::IoCtxImpl::aio_operate before op_submit, >>>>>>>>> so that I can get all replicated OSDs' id, and send a write op to each >>>>>>>>> of them. I can also attach the modified code if necessary. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I just reproduced this error with the conf you provided, please see below: >>>>>>>>> osd/ReplicatedPG.cc: In function 'int >>>>>>>>> ReplicatedPG::find_object_context(const hobject_t&, ObjectContextRef*, >>>>>>>>> bool, bool, hobject_t*)' thread 7fd6aba59700 time 2016-07-21 >>>>>>>>> 15:09:26.431436 >>>>>>>>> osd/ReplicatedPG.cc: 9042: FAILED assert(oid.pool == >>>>>>>>> static_cast<int64_t>(info.pgid.pool())) >>>>>>>>> ceph version 10.2.0-2562-g0793a28 (0793a2844baa38f6bcc5c1724a1ceb9f8f1bbd9c) >>>>>>>>> 1: (ceph::__ceph_assert_fail(char const*, char const*, int, char >>>>>>>>> const*)+0x8b) [0x7fd6c5733e8b] >>>>>>>>> 2: (ReplicatedPG::find_object_context(hobject_t const&, >>>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<ObjectContext>*, bool, bool, hobject_t*)+0x1e54) >>>>>>>>> [0x7fd6c51ef7c4] >>>>>>>>> 3: (ReplicatedPG::do_op(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>&)+0x186e) [0x7fd6c521fe9e] >>>>>>>>> 4: (ReplicatedPG::do_request(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>&, >>>>>>>>> ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x73c) [0x7fd6c51dca3c] >>>>>>>>> 5: (OSD::dequeue_op(boost::intrusive_ptr<PG>, >>>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>, ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x3f5) >>>>>>>>> [0x7fd6c5094d65] >>>>>>>>> 6: (PGQueueable::RunVis::operator()(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest> >>>>>>>>> const&)+0x5d) [0x7fd6c5094f8d] >>>>>>>>> 7: (OSD::ShardedOpWQ::_process(unsigned int, >>>>>>>>> ceph::heartbeat_handle_d*)+0x86c) [0x7fd6c50b603c] >>>>>>>>> 8: (ShardedThreadPool::shardedthreadpool_worker(unsigned int)+0x947) >>>>>>>>> [0x7fd6c5724117] >>>>>>>>> 9: (ShardedThreadPool::WorkThreadSharded::entry()+0x10) [0x7fd6c5726270] >>>>>>>>> 10: (()+0x8184) [0x7fd6c3b98184] >>>>>>>>> 11: (clone()+0x6d) [0x7fd6c1aa937d] >>>>>>>>> NOTE: a copy of the executable, or `objdump -rdS <executable>` is >>>>>>>>> needed to interpret this. >>>>>>>>> 2016-07-21 15:09:26.454854 7fd6aba59700 -1 osd/ReplicatedPG.cc: In >>>>>>>>> function 'int ReplicatedPG::find_object_context(const hobject_t&, >>>>>>>>> ObjectContextRef*, bool, bool, hobject_t*)' thread 7fd6aba59700 time >>>>>>>>> 2016-07-21 15:09:26.431436 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This error occurs three times since I wrote to three OSDs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sugang >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hmm. Can you provide more information about the poison op? If you >>>>>>>>>> can reproduce with >>>>>>>>>> debug osd = 20 >>>>>>>>>> debug filestore = 20 >>>>>>>>>> debug ms = 1 >>>>>>>>>> it should be easier to work out what is going on. >>>>>>>>>> -Sam >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:13 AM, Sugang Li <sugangli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am working on a research project which requires multiple write >>>>>>>>>>> operations for the same object at the same time from the client. At >>>>>>>>>>> the OSD side, I got this error: >>>>>>>>>>> osd/ReplicatedPG.cc: In function 'int >>>>>>>>>>> ReplicatedPG::find_object_context(const hobject_t&, ObjectContextRef*, >>>>>>>>>>> bool, bool, hobject_t*)' thread 7f0586193700 time 2016-07-21 >>>>>>>>>>> 14:02:04.218448 >>>>>>>>>>> osd/ReplicatedPG.cc: 9041: FAILED assert(oid.pool == >>>>>>>>>>> static_cast<int64_t>(info.pgid.pool())) >>>>>>>>>>> ceph version 10.2.0-2562-g0793a28 (0793a2844baa38f6bcc5c1724a1ceb9f8f1bbd9c) >>>>>>>>>>> 1: (ceph::__ceph_assert_fail(char const*, char const*, int, char >>>>>>>>>>> const*)+0x8b) [0x7f059fe6dd7b] >>>>>>>>>>> 2: (ReplicatedPG::find_object_context(hobject_t const&, >>>>>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<ObjectContext>*, bool, bool, hobject_t*)+0x1dbb) >>>>>>>>>>> [0x7f059f9296fb] >>>>>>>>>>> 3: (ReplicatedPG::do_op(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>&)+0x186e) [0x7f059f959d7e] >>>>>>>>>>> 4: (ReplicatedPG::do_request(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>&, >>>>>>>>>>> ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x73c) [0x7f059f916a0c] >>>>>>>>>>> 5: (OSD::dequeue_op(boost::intrusive_ptr<PG>, >>>>>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<OpRequest>, ThreadPool::TPHandle&)+0x3f5) >>>>>>>>>>> [0x7f059f7ced65] >>>>>>>>>>> 6: (PGQueueable::RunVis::operator()(std::shared_ptr<OpRequest> >>>>>>>>>>> const&)+0x5d) [0x7f059f7cef8d] >>>>>>>>>>> 7: (OSD::ShardedOpWQ::_process(unsigned int, >>>>>>>>>>> ceph::heartbeat_handle_d*)+0x86c) [0x7f059f7f003c] >>>>>>>>>>> 8: (ShardedThreadPool::shardedthreadpool_worker(unsigned int)+0x947) >>>>>>>>>>> [0x7f059fe5e007] >>>>>>>>>>> 9: (ShardedThreadPool::WorkThreadSharded::entry()+0x10) [0x7f059fe60160] >>>>>>>>>>> 10: (()+0x8184) [0x7f059e2d2184] >>>>>>>>>>> 11: (clone()+0x6d) [0x7f059c1e337d] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And at the client side, I got segmentation fault. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I am wondering what will be the possible reason that cause the assert fail? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sugang >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 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 -- 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
