Hi Randy, This is the same kernel we reproduced the issue on as well. Sam traced this down to the XFS allocation hint ioctl we recently started using for RBD. We've just pushed out a v0.80.4 firefly release that disables the hint by default. It should stop the inconsistencies from popping up, although you will need to use ceph pg repair <pgid> to fix the existing inconsistencies. sage On Mon, 14 Jul 2014, Randy Smith wrote: > $ lsb_release -a > LSB Version: ??core-2.0-amd64:core-2.0-noarch:core-3.0-amd64:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.1-amd > 64:core-3.1-noarch:core-3.2-amd64:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-amd64:core-4.0-n > oarch > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description: ? ?Ubuntu 12.04.4 LTS > Release: ? ? ? ?12.04 > Codename: ? ? ? precise > > $ uname -a > Linux droopy 3.2.0-64-generic #97-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 4 22:04:21 UTC 2014 > x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Samuel Just <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: > > Also, what distribution and kernel version are you using? > -Sam > > On Jul 12, 2014 10:46 AM, "Samuel Just" <sam.just at inktank.com> > wrote: > When you see another one, can you include the xattrs > on the files as > well (you can use the attr(1) utility)? > -Sam > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Randy Smith > <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: > > That image is the root file system for a linux > ldap server. > > > > -- > > Randall Smith > > Adams State University > > www.adams.edu > > 719-587-7741 > > > > On Jul 12, 2014 10:34 AM, "Samuel Just" > <sam.just at inktank.com> wrote: > >> > >> Here's a diff of the two files. ?One of the two > files appears to > >> contain ceph leveldb keys? ?Randy, do you have an > idea of what this > >> rbd image is being used for (rb.0.b0ce3.238e1f29, > that is). > >> -Sam > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Randy Smith > <rbsmith at adams.edu> wrote: > >> > 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_34DC35 > C6__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 > > > > > -- > Randall Smith > Computing Services > Adams State University > http://www.adams.edu/ > 719-587-7741 > >
 |