Greetings, Well it happened again with two pgs this time, still in the same rbd image. They are at http://people.adams.edu/~rbsmith/osd.tar. I think I grabbed the files correctly. If not, let me know and I'll try again on the next failure. It certainly is happening often enough. On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: > And grab the xattrs as well. > -Sam > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: > > Right. > > -Sam > > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Randy Smith <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: > >> 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 > -- 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/e496a2c8/attachment.htm>
 |