Greetings, I'm using xfs. Also, when, in a previous email, you asked if I could send the object, do you mean the files from each server named something like this: ./3.c6_head/DIR_6/DIR_C/DIR_5/rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29.00000000000b__head_34DC35C6__3 ? On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: > 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 > >> > >> > -- Randall Smith Computing Services Adams State University http://www.adams.edu/ 719-587-7741 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140711/70743e6d/attachment.htm>
 |