Also, what filesystem are you using? -Sam On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Sage Weil <sweil at redhat.com> wrote: > One other thing we might also try is catching this earlier (on first read > of corrupt data) instead of waiting for scrub. If you are not super > performance sensitive, you can add > > filestore sloppy crc = true > filestore sloppy crc block size = 524288 > > That will track and verify CRCs on any large (>512k) writes. Smaller > block sizes will give more precision and more checks, but will generate > larger xattrs and have a bigger impact on performance... > > sage > > > On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Samuel Just wrote: > >> When you get the next inconsistency, can you copy the actual objects >> from the osd store trees and get them to us? That might provide a >> clue. >> -Sam >> >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 6:52 AM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> It could be an indication of a problem on osd 5, but the timing is >> >> worrying. Can you attach your ceph.conf? >> > >> > >> > Attached. >> > >> >> >> >> Have there been any osds >> >> going down, new osds added, anything to cause recovery? >> > >> > >> > I upgraded to firefly last week. As part of the upgrade I, obviously, had to >> > restart every osd. Also, I attempted to switch to the optimal tunables but >> > doing so degraded 27% of my cluster and made most of my VMs unresponsive. I >> > switched back to the legacy tunables and everything was happy again. Both of >> > those operations, of course, caused recoveries. I have made no changes since >> > then. >> > >> >> >> >> Anything in >> >> dmesg to indicate an fs problem? >> > >> > >> > Nothing. The system went inconsistent again this morning, again on the same >> > rbd but different osds this time. >> > >> > 2014-07-11 05:48:12.857657 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 904 : [ERR] 3.76 >> > shard 1: soid 1280076/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000025c/head//3 digest >> > 2198242284 != known digest 3879754377 >> > 2014-07-11 05:49:29.020024 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 905 : [ERR] 3.76 >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> > 2014-07-11 05:49:29.020029 osd.1 192.168.253.77:6801/12608 906 : [ERR] 3.76 >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> > >> > $ ceph health detail >> > HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors >> > pg 3.76 is active+clean+inconsistent, acting [1,2] >> > 1 scrub errors >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Have you recently changed any >> >> settings? >> > >> > >> > I upgraded from bobtail to dumpling to firefly. >> > >> >> >> >> -Sam >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: >> >> > Greetings, >> >> > >> >> > Just a follow up on my original issue. =ceph pg repair ...= fixed the >> >> > problem. However, today I got another inconsistent pg. It's interesting >> >> > to >> >> > me that this second error is in the same rbd image and appears to be >> >> > "close" >> >> > to the previously inconsistent pg. (Even more fun, osd.5 was the >> >> > secondary >> >> > in the first error and is the primary here though the other osd is >> >> > different.) >> >> > >> >> > Is this indicative of a problem on osd.5 or perhaps a clue into what's >> >> > causing firefly to be so inconsistent? >> >> > >> >> > The relevant log entries are below. >> >> > >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:50:48.646407 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 163 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> > shard 2: soid 34dc35c6/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000000b/head//3 digest >> >> > 2256074002 != known digest 3998068918 >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.936076 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 164 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> >> > 2014-07-07 18:51:36.936082 osd.2 192.168.253.70:6801/56987 165 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.c6 >> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:38:53.990328 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 257 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.41 >> >> > shard 1: soid e183cc41/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000024c/head//3 digest >> >> > 3224286363 != known digest 3409342281 >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701276 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 258 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.41 >> >> > deep-scrub 0 missing, 1 inconsistent objects >> >> > 2014-07-10 15:39:11.701281 osd.5 192.168.253.81:6800/10013 259 : [ERR] >> >> > 3.41 >> >> > deep-scrub 1 errors >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Chahal, Sudip <sudip.chahal at intel.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks - so it appears that the advantage of the 3rd replica (relative >> >> >> to >> >> >> 2 replicas) has to do much more with recovering from two concurrent OSD >> >> >> failures than with inconsistencies found during deep scrub - would you >> >> >> agree? >> >> >> >> >> >> Re: repair - do you mean the "repair" process during deep scrub - if >> >> >> yes, >> >> >> this is automatic - correct? >> >> >> Or >> >> >> Are you referring to the explicit manually initiated repair commands? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> >> >> -Sudip >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> >> From: Samuel Just [mailto:sam.just at inktank.com] >> >> >> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:50 AM >> >> >> To: Chahal, Sudip >> >> >> Cc: Christian Eichelmann; ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >> >> >> >> Repair I think will tend to choose the copy with the lowest osd number >> >> >> which is not obviously corrupted. Even with three replicas, it does >> >> >> not do >> >> >> any kind of voting at this time. >> >> >> -Sam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Chahal, Sudip >> >> >> <sudip.chahal at intel.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > I've a basic related question re: Firefly operation - would >> >> >> > appreciate >> >> >> > any insights: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > With three replicas, if checksum inconsistencies across replicas are >> >> >> > found during deep-scrub then: >> >> >> > a. does the majority win or is the primary always the winner >> >> >> > and used to overwrite the secondaries >> >> >> > b. is this reconciliation done automatically during >> >> >> > deep-scrub or does each reconciliation have to be executed manually >> >> >> > by the >> >> >> > administrator? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > With 2 replicas - how are things different (if at all): >> >> >> > a. The primary is declared the winner - correct? >> >> >> > b. is this reconciliation done automatically during >> >> >> > deep-scrub or does it have to be done "manually" because there is no >> >> >> > majority? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Thanks, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -Sudip >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> >> > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces at lists.ceph.com] On Behalf >> >> >> > Of Samuel Just >> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:16 AM >> >> >> > To: Christian Eichelmann >> >> >> > Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Can you attach your ceph.conf for your osds? >> >> >> > -Sam >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Christian Eichelmann >> >> >> > <christian.eichelmann at 1und1.de> wrote: >> >> >> >> I can also confirm that after upgrading to firefly both of our >> >> >> >> clusters (test and live) were going from 0 scrub errors each for >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> 6 Month to about 9-12 per week... >> >> >> >> This also makes me kind of nervous, since as far as I know >> >> >> >> everything >> >> >> >> "ceph pg repair" does, is to copy the primary object to all >> >> >> >> replicas, >> >> >> >> no matter which object is the correct one. >> >> >> >> Of course the described method of manual checking works (for pools >> >> >> >> with more than 2 replicas), but doing this in a large cluster nearly >> >> >> >> every week is horribly timeconsuming and error prone. >> >> >> >> It would be great to get an explanation for the increased numbers of >> >> >> >> scrub errors since firefly. Were they just not detected correctly in >> >> >> >> previous versions? Or is there maybe something wrong with the new >> >> >> >> code? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Acutally, our company is currently preventing our projects to move >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> ceph because of this problem. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Christian >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> Von: ceph-users [ceph-users-bounces at lists.ceph.com]" im Auftrag von >> >> >> >> "Travis Rhoden [trhoden at gmail.com] >> >> >> >> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 2014 16:24 >> >> >> >> An: Gregory Farnum >> >> >> >> Cc: ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> >> Betreff: Re: [ceph-users] scrub error on firefly >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And actually just to follow-up, it does seem like there are some >> >> >> >> additional smarts beyond just using the primary to overwrite the >> >> >> >> secondaries... Since I captured md5 sums before and after the >> >> >> >> repair, I can say that in this particular instance, the secondary >> >> >> >> copy >> >> >> >> was used to overwrite the primary. >> >> >> >> So, I'm just trusting Ceph to the right thing, and so far it seems >> >> >> >> to, but the comments here about needing to determine the correct >> >> >> >> object and place it on the primary PG make me wonder if I've been >> >> >> >> missing something. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Travis >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Travis Rhoden <trhoden at gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I can also say that after a recent upgrade to Firefly, I have >> >> >> >>> experienced massive uptick in scrub errors. The cluster was on >> >> >> >>> cuttlefish for about a year, and had maybe one or two scrub errors. >> >> >> >>> After upgrading to Firefly, we've probably seen 3 to 4 dozen in the >> >> >> >>> last month or so (was getting 2-3 a day for a few weeks until the >> >> >> >>> whole cluster was rescrubbed, it seemed). >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> What I cannot determine, however, is how to know which object is >> >> >> >>> busted? >> >> >> >>> For example, just today I ran into a scrub error. The object has >> >> >> >>> two copies and is an 8MB piece of an RBD, and has identical >> >> >> >>> timestamps, identical xattrs names and values. But it definitely >> >> >> >>> has a different >> >> >> >>> MD5 sum. How to know which one is correct? >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> I've been just kicking off pg repair each time, which seems to just >> >> >> >>> use the primary copy to overwrite the others. Haven't run into any >> >> >> >>> issues with that so far, but it does make me nervous. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> - Travis >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Gregory Farnum <greg at inktank.com> >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> It's not very intuitive or easy to look at right now (there are >> >> >> >>>> plans from the recent developer summit to improve things), but the >> >> >> >>>> central log should have output about exactly what objects are >> >> >> >>>> busted. You'll then want to compare the copies manually to >> >> >> >>>> determine which ones are good or bad, get the good copy on the >> >> >> >>>> primary (make sure you preserve xattrs), and run repair. >> >> >> >>>> -Greg >> >> >> >>>> Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> >> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> > Greetings, >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > I upgraded to firefly last week and I suddenly received this >> >> >> >>>> > error: >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > health HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > ceph health detail shows the following: >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > HEALTH_ERR 1 pgs inconsistent; 1 scrub errors pg 3.c6 is >> >> >> >>>> > active+clean+inconsistent, acting [2,5] >> >> >> >>>> > 1 scrub errors >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > The docs say that I can run `ceph pg repair 3.c6` to fix this. >> >> >> >>>> > What I want to know is what are the risks of data loss if I run >> >> >> >>>> > that command in this state and how can I mitigate them? >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > -- >> >> >> >>>> > Randall Smith >> >> >> >>>> > Computing Services >> >> >> >>>> > Adams State University >> >> >> >>>> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> >> >>>> > 719-587-7741 >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >>>> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> >> >>>> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> >>>> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >>>> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >> >>>> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >> >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> >> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> >> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> ceph-users mailing list >> >> >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Randall Smith >> >> > Computing Services >> >> > Adams State University >> >> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> >> > 719-587-7741 >> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > ceph-users mailing list >> >> > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Randall Smith >> > Computing Services >> > Adams State University >> > http://www.adams.edu/ >> > 719-587-7741 >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> ceph-users at lists.ceph.com >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >>
 |