On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > With some off-list help, we have adjusted > osd_client_message_cap=10000. This seems to have helped a bit and we > have seen some OSDs have a value up to 4,000 for client messages. But > it does not solve the problem with the blocked I/O. > > One thing that I have noticed is that almost exactly 30 seconds elapse > between an OSD boots and the first blocked I/O message. I don't know > if the OSD doesn't have time to get it's brain right about a PG before > it starts servicing it or what exactly. I'm downloading the logs from yesterday now; sorry it's taking so long. > On another note, I tried upgrading our CentOS dev cluster from Hammer > to master and things didn't go so well. The OSDs would not start > because /var/lib/ceph was not owned by ceph. I chowned the directory > and all OSDs and the OSD then started, but never became active in the > cluster. It just sat there after reading all the PGs. There were > sockets open to the monitor, but no OSD to OSD sockets. I tried > downgrading to the Infernalis branch and still no luck getting the > OSDs to come up. The OSD processes were idle after the initial boot. > All packages were installed from gitbuilder. Did you chown -R ? https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/infernalis/doc/release-notes.rst#upgrading-from-hammer My guess is you only chowned the root dir, and the OSD didn't throw an error when it encountered the other files? If you can generate a debug osd = 20 log, that would be helpful.. thanks! sage > > Thanks, > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWE0F5CRDmVDuy+mK58QAAaCYQAJuFcCvRUJ46k0rYrMcc > YlrSrGwS57GJS/JjaFHsvBV7KTobEMNeMkSv4PTGpwylNV9Dx4Ad74DDqX4g > 6hZDe0rE+uEI7tW9Lqp+MN7eaU2lDuwLt/pOzZI14jTskUYTlNi3HjlN67mQ > aiX1rbrJL6FFkuMOn/YqHpMbxI5ZOUZc1s7RDhASOPIs4z/CxpDfluW6fZA/ > y8C+pW6zzS9U/6jZwtGhBq4dvDBO41Lxb9WOehD8Aa/Qt6XNDzGw2KEkEkw7 > 8dBc7UFa2Wx3Tnzy238a/nKhtz6O6OrHsroA+HGWwCoxPWjOsz/xOoOmfwp+ > ALkY3id+t2uJEqzbL8/MgJ2RV1A+AZ7W1VWIJUOkDz0wR+KxQsxduHoD6rQy > zg0fj2KSAlmVusYOPM1s1+jBsqNF3wcNxpbRoVuFqk0xMgGPrIdUNdZHg6bs > D5sfkjNKexFe0ifFJ0cfv6UaGIKv4dK2eq3jUKgXHfh/qZmJbEB+zHaqJNyg > CN6w6xu1FHLeVobKAWe5ZzKY5lxw6b8YG+ce/E2dvW73gSASPTvtv68gaT04 > 2SPF9Ql0fERL5EDY9Pc4MHpQVcS0XxxJA69CgnWgaG6fzq2eY7fALeMBVWlB > fRj3zQwqJls/X8JZ3c4P4G0R6DP9bmMwGr++oYc3gWGrvgzxw3N7+ornd0jd > GdXC > =Aigq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ---------------- > Robert LeBlanc > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > I have eight nodes running the fio job rbd_test_real to different RBD > > volumes. I've included the CRUSH map in the tarball. > > > > I stopped one OSD process and marked it out. I let it recover for a > > few minutes and then I started the process again and marked it in. I > > started getting block I/O messages during the recovery. > > > > The logs are located at http://162.144.87.113/files/ushou1.tar.xz > > > > Thanks, > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 > > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWEZRcCRDmVDuy+mK58QAALbEQAK5pFiixJarUdLm50zp/ > > 3AGgGBPrieExKmoZZLCoMGfOLfxZDbN2ybtopKDQDfrTqndE/6Xi9UXqTOdW > > jDc9U1wusgG0CKPsY1SMYnB9akvaDwtdh5q5k4VpN2zsG9R6lRojHeNQR3Nf > > 56QevJL4/e5lC3sLhVnxXXi2XKnHCVOHT+PYgNour2ZWt6OTLoFFxuSU3zLN > > OtfXgrFiiNF0mrDpm0gg2l8a8N5SwP9mM233S2U/JiGAqsqoqkfd0okjDenC > > ksesU/n7zordFpfLN3yjL6+X9pQ4YA6otZrq4wWtjWKO/H0b+6iIsf/AE131 > > R6a4Vufndpd3Ce+FNfM+iu3FmKk0KVfDAaF/tIP6S6XUzGVMAbpvpmqNL17o > > boh3wPZEyK+7KiF4Qlt2KoI/FV24Yj8XiyMnKin3MbMYbammb4ER977VH7iI > > sZyelNPSsYmmw/MF+AkA5KVgzQ4DAPflaejIgC5uw3dYKrn2AQE5CE9nN8Gz > > GVVaGItu1Bvrz21QoT9o5v0dZ85zttFvtrKIYgSi4mdpC6XkzUbg9s9EB1/T > > SEY+fau7W7TtiLpzCAIQ3zDvgsvkx2P6tKg5U8e93LVv9B+YI8i8mUxxv1j5 > > PHFi7KTgRUPm1FPMJDSyzvOgqyMj9AzaESl1Na6k529ILFIcyfko0niTT1oZ > > 3EPx > > =UDIV > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ---------------- > > Robert LeBlanc > > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> Hash: SHA256 > >>> > >>> We are still struggling with this and have tried a lot of different > >>> things. Unfortunately, Inktank (now Red Hat) no longer provides > >>> consulting services for non-Red Hat systems. If there are some > >>> certified Ceph consultants in the US that we can do both remote and > >>> on-site engagements, please let us know. > >>> > >>> This certainly seems to be network related, but somewhere in the > >>> kernel. We have tried increasing the network and TCP buffers, number > >>> of TCP sockets, reduced the FIN_WAIT2 state. There is about 25% idle > >>> on the boxes, the disks are busy, but not constantly at 100% (they > >>> cycle from <10% up to 100%, but not 100% for more than a few seconds > >>> at a time). There seems to be no reasonable explanation why I/O is > >>> blocked pretty frequently longer than 30 seconds. We have verified > >>> Jumbo frames by pinging from/to each node with 9000 byte packets. The > >>> network admins have verified that packets are not being dropped in the > >>> switches for these nodes. We have tried different kernels including > >>> the recent Google patch to cubic. This is showing up on three cluster > >>> (two Ethernet and one IPoIB). I booted one cluster into Debian Jessie > >>> (from CentOS 7.1) with similar results. > >>> > >>> The messages seem slightly different: > >>> 2015-10-03 14:38:23.193082 osd.134 10.208.16.25:6800/1425 439 : > >>> cluster [WRN] 14 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > > >>> 100.087155 secs > >>> 2015-10-03 14:38:23.193090 osd.134 10.208.16.25:6800/1425 440 : > >>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.041999 seconds old, received at > >>> 2015-10-03 14:37:53.151014: osd_op(client.1328605.0:7082862 > >>> rbd_data.13fdcb2ae8944a.000000000001264f [read 975360~4096] > >>> 11.6d19c36f ack+read+known_if_redirected e10249) currently no flag > >>> points reached > >>> > >>> I don't know what "no flag points reached" means. > >> > >> Just that the op hasn't been marked as reaching any interesting points > >> (op->mark_*() calls). > >> > >> Is it possible to gather a lot with debug ms = 20 and debug osd = 20? > >> It's extremely verbose but it'll let us see where the op is getting > >> blocked. If you see the "slow request" message it means the op in > >> received by ceph (that's when the clock starts), so I suspect it's not > >> something we can blame on the network stack. > >> > >> sage > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The problem is most pronounced when we have to reboot an OSD node (1 > >>> of 13), we will have hundreds of I/O blocked for some times up to 300 > >>> seconds. It takes a good 15 minutes for things to settle down. The > >>> production cluster is very busy doing normally 8,000 I/O and peaking > >>> at 15,000. This is all 4TB spindles with SSD journals and the disks > >>> are between 25-50% full. We are currently splitting PGs to distribute > >>> the load better across the disks, but we are having to do this 10 PGs > >>> at a time as we get blocked I/O. We have max_backfills and > >>> max_recovery set to 1, client op priority is set higher than recovery > >>> priority. We tried increasing the number of op threads but this didn't > >>> seem to help. It seems as soon as PGs are finished being checked, they > >>> become active and could be the cause for slow I/O while the other PGs > >>> are being checked. > >>> > >>> What I don't understand is that the messages are delayed. As soon as > >>> the message is received by Ceph OSD process, it is very quickly > >>> committed to the journal and a response is sent back to the primary > >>> OSD which is received very quickly as well. I've adjust > >>> min_free_kbytes and it seems to keep the OSDs from crashing, but > >>> doesn't solve the main problem. We don't have swap and there is 64 GB > >>> of RAM per nodes for 10 OSDs. > >>> > >>> Is there something that could cause the kernel to get a packet but not > >>> be able to dispatch it to Ceph such that it could be explaining why we > >>> are seeing these blocked I/O for 30+ seconds. Is there some pointers > >>> to tracing Ceph messages from the network buffer through the kernel to > >>> the Ceph process? > >>> > >>> We can really use some pointers no matter how outrageous. We've have > >>> over 6 people looking into this for weeks now and just can't think of > >>> anything else. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 > >>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > >>> > >>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWEDY1CRDmVDuy+mK58QAARgoP/RcoL1qVmg7qbQrzStar > >>> NK80bqYGeYHb26xHbt1fZVgnZhXU0nN0Dv4ew0e/cYJLELSO2KCeXNfXN6F1 > >>> prZuzYagYEyj1Q1TOo+4h/nOQRYsTwQDdFzbHb/OUDN55C0QGZ29DjEvrqP6 > >>> K5l6sAQzvQDpUEEIiOCkS6pH59ira740nSmnYkEWhr1lxF/hMjb6fFlfCFe2 > >>> h1djM0GfY7vBHFGgI3jkw0BL5AQnWe+SCcCiKZmxY6xiR70FWl3XqK5M+nxm > >>> iq74y7Dv6cpenit6boMr6qtOeIt+8ko85hVMh09Hkaqz/m2FzxAKLcahzkGF > >>> Fh/M6YBzgnX7QBURTC4YQT/FVyDTW3JMuT3RKQdaX6c0iiOsVdkE+iyidWyY > >>> Hr1KzWU23Ur9yBfZ39Y43jrsSiAEwHnKjSqMowSGljdTysNEAAZQhlqZIoHb > >>> JlgpB39ugkHI1H5fZ5b2SIDz32/d5ywG4Gay9Rk6hp8VanvIrBbev+JYEoYT > >>> 8/WX+fhueHt4dqUYWIl3HZ0CEzbXbug0xmFvhrbmL2f3t9XOkDZRbAjlYrGm > >>> lswiJMDueY8JkxSnPvCQrHXqjbCcy9rMG7nTnLFz98rTcHNCwtpv0qVYhheg > >>> 4YRNRVMbfNP/6xsJvG1wVOSQPwxZSPqJh42pDqMRePJl3Zn66MTx5wvdNDpk > >>> l7OF > >>> =OI++ > >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> ---------------- > >>> Robert LeBlanc > >>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > We dropped the replication on our cluster from 4 to 3 and it looks > >>> > like all the blocked I/O has stopped (no entries in the log for the > >>> > last 12 hours). This makes me believe that there is some issue with > >>> > the number of sockets or some other TCP issue. We have not messed with > >>> > Ephemeral ports and TIME_WAIT at this point. There are 130 OSDs, 8 KVM > >>> > hosts hosting about 150 VMs. Open files is set at 32K for the OSD > >>> > processes and 16K system wide. > >>> > > >>> > Does this seem like the right spot to be looking? What are some > >>> > configuration items we should be looking at? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > ---------------- > >>> > Robert LeBlanc > >>> > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> >> Hash: SHA256 > >>> >> > >>> >> We were able to only get ~17Gb out of the XL710 (heavily tweaked) > >>> >> until we went to the 4.x kernel where we got ~36Gb (no tweaking). It > >>> >> seems that there were some major reworks in the network handling in > >>> >> the kernel to efficiently handle that network rate. If I remember > >>> >> right we also saw a drop in CPU utilization. I'm starting to think > >>> >> that we did see packet loss while congesting our ISLs in our initial > >>> >> testing, but we could not tell where the dropping was happening. We > >>> >> saw some on the switches, but it didn't seem to be bad if we weren't > >>> >> trying to congest things. We probably already saw this issue, just > >>> >> didn't know it. > >>> >> - ---------------- > >>> >> Robert LeBlanc > >>> >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Mark Nelson wrote: > >>> >>> FWIW, we've got some 40GbE Intel cards in the community performance cluster > >>> >>> on a Mellanox 40GbE switch that appear (knock on wood) to be running fine > >>> >>> with 3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.x86_64. We did get feedback from Intel that older > >>> >>> drivers might cause problems though. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Here's ifconfig from one of the nodes: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> ens513f1: flags=4163 mtu 1500 > >>> >>> inet 10.0.10.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.0.10.255 > >>> >>> inet6 fe80::6a05:caff:fe2b:7ea1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20 > >>> >>> ether 68:05:ca:2b:7e:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) > >>> >>> RX packets 169232242875 bytes 229346261232279 (208.5 TiB) > >>> >>> RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 > >>> >>> TX packets 153491686361 bytes 203976410836881 (185.5 TiB) > >>> >>> TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Mark > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 09/23/2015 01:48 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> >>>> Hash: SHA256 > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> OK, here is the update on the saga... > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I traced some more of blocked I/Os and it seems that communication > >>> >>>> between two hosts seemed worse than others. I did a two way ping flood > >>> >>>> between the two hosts using max packet sizes (1500). After 1.5M > >>> >>>> packets, no lost pings. Then then had the ping flood running while I > >>> >>>> put Ceph load on the cluster and the dropped pings started increasing > >>> >>>> after stopping the Ceph workload the pings stopped dropping. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I then ran iperf between all the nodes with the same results, so that > >>> >>>> ruled out Ceph to a large degree. I then booted in the the > >>> >>>> 3.10.0-229.14.1.el7.x86_64 kernel and with an hour test so far there > >>> >>>> hasn't been any dropped pings or blocked I/O. Our 40 Gb NICs really > >>> >>>> need the network enhancements in the 4.x series to work well. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Does this sound familiar to anyone? I'll probably start bisecting the > >>> >>>> kernel to see where this issue in introduced. Both of the clusters > >>> >>>> with this issue are running 4.x, other than that, they are pretty > >>> >>>> differing hardware and network configs. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Thanks, > >>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 > >>> >>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAvOzCRDmVDuy+mK58QAApOMP/1xmCtW++G11qcE8y/sr > >>> >>>> RkXguqZJLc4czdOwV/tjUvhVsm5qOl4wvQCtABFZpc6t4+m5nzE3LkA1rl2l > >>> >>>> AnARPOjh61TO6cV0CT8O0DlqtHmSd2y0ElgAUl0594eInEn7eI7crz8R543V > >>> >>>> 7I68XU5zL/vNJ9IIx38UqdhtSzXQQL664DGq3DLINK0Yb9XRVBlFip+Slt+j > >>> >>>> cB64TuWjOPLSH09pv7SUyksodqrTq3K7p6sQkq0MOzBkFQM1FHfOipbo/LYv > >>> >>>> F42iiQbCvFizArMu20WeOSQ4dmrXT/iecgTfEag/Zxvor2gOi/J6d2XS9ckW > >>> >>>> byEC5/rbm4yDBua2ZugeNxQLWq0Oa7spZnx7usLsu/6YzeDNI6kmtGURajdE > >>> >>>> /XC8bESWKveBzmGDzjff5oaMs9A1PZURYnlYADEODGAt6byoaoQEGN6dlFGe > >>> >>>> LwQ5nOdQYuUrWpJzTJBN3aduOxursoFY8S0eR0uXm0l1CHcp22RWBDvRinok > >>> >>>> UWk5xRBgjDCD2gIwc+wpImZbCtiTdf0vad1uLvdxGL29iFta4THzJgUGrp98 > >>> >>>> sUqM3RaTRdJYjFcNP293H7/DC0mqpnmo0Clx3jkdHX+x1EXpJUtocSeI44LX > >>> >>>> KWIMhe9wXtKAoHQFEcJ0o0+wrXWMevvx33HPC4q1ULrFX0ILNx5Mo0Rp944X > >>> >>>> 4OEo > >>> >>>> =P33I > >>> >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>> ---------------- > >>> >>>> Robert LeBlanc > >>> >>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Robert LeBlanc > >>> >>>> wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> >>>>> Hash: SHA256 > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> This is IPoIB and we have the MTU set to 64K. There was some issues > >>> >>>>> pinging hosts with "No buffer space available" (hosts are currently > >>> >>>>> configured for 4GB to test SSD caching rather than page cache). I > >>> >>>>> found that MTU under 32K worked reliable for ping, but still had the > >>> >>>>> blocked I/O. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> I reduced the MTU to 1500 and checked pings (OK), but I'm still seeing > >>> >>>>> the blocked I/O. > >>> >>>>> - ---------------- > >>> >>>>> Robert LeBlanc > >>> >>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Sage Weil wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Samuel Just wrote: > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> I looked at the logs, it looks like there was a 53 second delay > >>> >>>>>>> between when osd.17 started sending the osd_repop message and when > >>> >>>>>>> osd.13 started reading it, which is pretty weird. Sage, didn't we > >>> >>>>>>> once see a kernel issue which caused some messages to be mysteriously > >>> >>>>>>> delayed for many 10s of seconds? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Every time we have seen this behavior and diagnosed it in the wild it > >>> >>>>>> has > >>> >>>>>> been a network misconfiguration. Usually related to jumbo frames. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> sage > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> What kernel are you running? > >>> >>>>>>> -Sam > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> OK, looping in ceph-devel to see if I can get some more eyes. I've > >>> >>>>>>>> extracted what I think are important entries from the logs for the > >>> >>>>>>>> first blocked request. NTP is running all the servers so the logs > >>> >>>>>>>> should be close in terms of time. Logs for 12:50 to 13:00 are > >>> >>>>>>>> available at http://162.144.87.113/files/ceph_block_io.logs.tar.xz > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.500374 - osd.17 gets I/O from client > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.557160 - osd.17 submits I/O to osd.13 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.557305 - osd.17 submits I/O to osd.16 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.573711 - osd.16 gets I/O from osd.17 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.595716 - osd.17 gets ondisk result=0 from osd.16 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.640631 - osd.16 reports to osd.17 ondisk result=0 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926691 - osd.17 reports slow I/O > 30.439150 sec > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:59.790591 - osd.13 gets I/O from osd.17 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:59.812405 - osd.17 gets ondisk result=0 from osd.13 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:56:02.941602 - osd.13 reports to osd.17 ondisk result=0 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> In the logs I can see that osd.17 dispatches the I/O to osd.13 and > >>> >>>>>>>> osd.16 almost silmutaniously. osd.16 seems to get the I/O right away, > >>> >>>>>>>> but for some reason osd.13 doesn't get the message until 53 seconds > >>> >>>>>>>> later. osd.17 seems happy to just wait and doesn't resend the data > >>> >>>>>>>> (well, I'm not 100% sure how to tell which entries are the actual data > >>> >>>>>>>> transfer). > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> It looks like osd.17 is receiving responses to start the communication > >>> >>>>>>>> with osd.13, but the op is not acknowledged until almost a minute > >>> >>>>>>>> later. To me it seems that the message is getting received but not > >>> >>>>>>>> passed to another thread right away or something. This test was done > >>> >>>>>>>> with an idle cluster, a single fio client (rbd engine) with a single > >>> >>>>>>>> thread. > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> The OSD servers are almost 100% idle during these blocked I/O > >>> >>>>>>>> requests. I think I'm at the end of my troubleshooting, so I can use > >>> >>>>>>>> some help. > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> Single Test started about > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:52:36 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926680 osd.17 192.168.55.14:6800/16726 56 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > > >>> >>>>>>>> 30.439150 secs > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.926699 osd.17 192.168.55.14:6800/16726 57 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.439150 seconds old, received at > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:06.487451: > >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1388 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.0000000000000545 > >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.bbf3e8ff ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) > >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,16 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697904 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 7 : cluster > >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] 2 slow requests, 2 included below; oldest blocked for > > >>> >>>>>>>> 30.379680 secs > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697918 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 8 : cluster > >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] slow request 30.291520 seconds old, received at 2015-09-22 > >>> >>>>>>>> 12:55:06.406303: > >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1384 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.0000000000000541 > >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.5fb2123f ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) > >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,17 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:55:36.697927 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 9 : cluster > >>> >>>>>>>> [WRN] slow request 30.379680 seconds old, received at 2015-09-22 > >>> >>>>>>>> 12:55:06.318144: > >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1382 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000053f > >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.312e69ca ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) > >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,14 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.998275 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6804/4574 130 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > > >>> >>>>>>>> 30.954212 secs > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.998286 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6804/4574 131 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.954212 seconds old, received at > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:57:33.044003: > >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1873 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000070d > >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.e69870d4 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) > >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 16,17 > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.759826 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 10 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] 1 slow requests, 1 included below; oldest blocked for > > >>> >>>>>>>> 30.704367 secs > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:58:03.759840 osd.16 192.168.55.13:6800/29410 11 : > >>> >>>>>>>> cluster [WRN] slow request 30.704367 seconds old, received at > >>> >>>>>>>> 2015-09-22 12:57:33.055404: > >>> >>>>>>>> osd_op(client.250874.0:1874 rbd_data.3380e2ae8944a.000000000000070e > >>> >>>>>>>> [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > >>> >>>>>>>> 0~4194304] 8.f7635819 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e56785) > >>> >>>>>>>> currently waiting for subops from 13,17 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> Server IP addr OSD > >>> >>>>>>>> nodev - 192.168.55.11 - 12 > >>> >>>>>>>> nodew - 192.168.55.12 - 13 > >>> >>>>>>>> nodex - 192.168.55.13 - 16 > >>> >>>>>>>> nodey - 192.168.55.14 - 17 > >>> >>>>>>>> nodez - 192.168.55.15 - 14 > >>> >>>>>>>> nodezz - 192.168.55.16 - 15 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> fio job: > >>> >>>>>>>> [rbd-test] > >>> >>>>>>>> readwrite=write > >>> >>>>>>>> blocksize=4M > >>> >>>>>>>> #runtime=60 > >>> >>>>>>>> name=rbd-test > >>> >>>>>>>> #readwrite=randwrite > >>> >>>>>>>> #bssplit=4k/85:32k/11:512/3:1m/1,4k/89:32k/10:512k/1 > >>> >>>>>>>> #rwmixread=72 > >>> >>>>>>>> #norandommap > >>> >>>>>>>> #size=1T > >>> >>>>>>>> #blocksize=4k > >>> >>>>>>>> ioengine=rbd > >>> >>>>>>>> rbdname=test2 > >>> >>>>>>>> pool=rbd > >>> >>>>>>>> clientname=admin > >>> >>>>>>>> iodepth=8 > >>> >>>>>>>> #numjobs=4 > >>> >>>>>>>> #thread > >>> >>>>>>>> #group_reporting > >>> >>>>>>>> #time_based > >>> >>>>>>>> #direct=1 > >>> >>>>>>>> #ramp_time=60 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, > >>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 > >>> >>>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAcaKCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAPMsQAKBnS94fwuw0OqpPU3/z > >>> >>>>>>>> tL8Z6TVRxrNigf721+2ClIu4LIH71bupDc3DgrrysQmmqGuvEMn68spmasWu > >>> >>>>>>>> h9I/CqqgRpHqe4lUVoUEjyWA9/6Dbb6NiHSdpJ6p5jpGc8kZCvNS+ocDgFOl > >>> >>>>>>>> 903i0M0E9eEMeci5O/hrMrx1FG8SN2LS8nI261aNHMOwQK0bw8wWiCJEvqVB > >>> >>>>>>>> sz1/+jK1BJoeIYfaT9HfUXBAvfo/W3tY/vj9KbJuZJ5AMpeYPvEHu/LAr1N7 > >>> >>>>>>>> FzzUc7a6EMlaxmSd0ML49JbV0cY9BMDjfrkKEQNKlzszlEHm3iif98QtsxbF > >>> >>>>>>>> pPJ0hZ0G53BY3k976OWVMFm3WFRWUVOb/oiLF8H6PCm59b4LBNAg6iPNH1AI > >>> >>>>>>>> 5XhEcPpg06M03vqUaIiY9P1kQlvnn0yCXf82IUEgmg///vhxDsHWmcwClLEn > >>> >>>>>>>> B0VszouStTzlMYnc/2vlUiI4gFVeilWLMW00VGTWV+7V1oIzIYvWHyl2QpBq > >>> >>>>>>>> 4/ZwVjQ43qLfuDTS4o+IJ4ztOMd26vIv6Mn6WVwKCjoCXJc8ajywR9Dy+6lL > >>> >>>>>>>> o8oJ+tn7hMc9Qy1iBhu3/QIP4WCsUf9RVeu60oahNEpde89qW32S9CZlrJDO > >>> >>>>>>>> gf4iTryRjkAhdmZIj9JiaE8jQ6dvN817D9cqs/CXKV9vhzYoM7p5YWHghBKB > >>> >>>>>>>> J3hS > >>> >>>>>>>> =0J7F > >>> >>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>>>>>> ---------------- > >>> >>>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc > >>> >>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Gregory Farnum wrote: > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >>> >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> Is there some way to tell in the logs that this is happening? > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> You can search for the (mangled) name _split_collection > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not > >>> >>>>>>>>>> seeing much I/O, CPU usage during these times. Is there some way to > >>> >>>>>>>>>> prevent the splitting? Is there a negative side effect to doing so? > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> Bump up the split and merge thresholds. You can search the list for > >>> >>>>>>>>> this, it was discussed not too long ago. > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> We've had I/O block for over 900 seconds and as soon as the sessions > >>> >>>>>>>>>> are aborted, they are reestablished and complete immediately. > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> The fio test is just a seq write, starting it over (rewriting from > >>> >>>>>>>>>> the > >>> >>>>>>>>>> beginning) is still causing the issue. I was suspect that it is not > >>> >>>>>>>>>> having to create new file and therefore split collections. This is > >>> >>>>>>>>>> on > >>> >>>>>>>>>> my test cluster with no other load. > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> Hmm, that does make it seem less likely if you're really not creating > >>> >>>>>>>>> new objects, if you're actually running fio in such a way that it's > >>> >>>>>>>>> not allocating new FS blocks (this is probably hard to set up?). > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'll be doing a lot of testing today. Which log options and depths > >>> >>>>>>>>>> would be the most helpful for tracking this issue down? > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>>> If you want to go log diving "debug osd = 20", "debug filestore = > >>> >>>>>>>>> 20", > >>> >>>>>>>>> "debug ms = 1" are what the OSD guys like to see. That should spit > >>> >>>>>>>>> out > >>> >>>>>>>>> everything you need to track exactly what each Op is doing. > >>> >>>>>>>>> -Greg > >>> >>>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>>> -- > >>> >>>>>>>> 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 > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 > >>> >>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAdMSCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAoEgP/AqpH7i1BLpoz6fTlfWG > >>> >>>>> a6swvF8xvsyR15PDiPINYT0N7MgoikikGrMmhWpJ6utEr1XPW0MPFgzvNIsf > >>> >>>>> a1eMtNzyww4rAo6JCq6BtjmUsSKmOrBNhRNr6It9v4Nv+biqZHkiY8x/rRtV > >>> >>>>> s9z0cv3Q9Wqa6y/zKZg3H1XtbtUAx0r/DUwzSsP3omupZgNyaKkCgdkil9Vc > >>> >>>>> iyzBxFZU4+qXNT2FBG4dYDjxSHQv4psjvKR3AWXSN4yEn286KyMDjFrsDY5B > >>> >>>>> izS3h603QPoErqsUQngDE8COcaTAHHrV7gNJTikmGoNW6oQBjFq/z/zindTz > >>> >>>>> caXshVQQ+OTLo/qzJM8QPswh0TGU74SVbDkTq+eTOb5pBhQbp+42Pkkqh7jj > >>> >>>>> efyyYgDzpB1WrWRbUlWMNqmnjq7DT3lnAtuHyKbkwVs8x3JMPEiCl6PBvJbx > >>> >>>>> GnNSCqgDJrpb4fHQ2iqfQeh8Ai6AL1C1Ai19RZPrAUhpDW0/DbUvuoKSR8m7 > >>> >>>>> glYYuH3hpy+oPYRhFcHm2fpNJ3u9npyk2Dai9RpzQ+mWmp3xi7becYmL482H > >>> >>>>> +WyvLeY+8AiJQDpA0CdD8KeSlOC9bw5TPmihAIn9dVTJ1O2RlapCLqL3YAJg > >>> >>>>> pGyDs8ercTEJLmvEyElj5XWh5DarsGscd2LELNS/UpyuYurbPcyPKUQ0uPjp > >>> >>>>> gcZm > >>> >>>>> =CjwB > >>> >>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> -- > >>> >>>> 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 > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> >> Version: Mailvelope v1.1.0 > >>> >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > >>> >> > >>> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWAv3QCRDmVDuy+mK58QAABr4QAJcQj8zjl606aMdkmQG7 > >>> >> S46iMXVav/Tv2os9GCUsQmMPx2u1w3/WmPfjByd6Divczfo0JLDDqrbsqre2 > >>> >> lq0GNK6e8fq6FXHhPpnL+t4uFV4UZ289cma3yklRqEBDXWHlP59Hu7VpxC5l > >>> >> 0MIcCg4wM5VM/LkrfcMven5em5CnjyFJYbActGzw9043rZoyUwCM+eL7sotl > >>> >> JYHMcNWnqwdt8TLFDhUfVGiAQyV8/6E33CuCNUEuFGdtiBKzs9IZadOI8Ce0 > >>> >> dod2DQNyFSvomqNq6t0DuTCSA+pT8uuks2O0NcrHjoqwIWVkxQGPYlpbpckf > >>> >> nxQdVM7vkqapVeQ0qUZx43Db9A5wDTC3PaEfVJZPZzWsSDjh9z7o6qHs3Kvp > >>> >> krfyS+dJaZ3tOYAP1VFDfasj06sOTFu3mfGYToKA75zz5HN7QZ13Zau/qhDu > >>> >> FHxsgk4oIXJsjj22LiSpoiigH5Ls+aVqtIbg8/vWp+EO6pK1fovEtJVeGAfE > >>> >> tLOdxfJJLVjMCAScFG9BRl1ePPLeptivKV0v9ruWsTpn+Q96VtqAR5GQCkYE > >>> >> hFrlxM+oIzHeArhhiIxSPCYLlnzxoD5IYXmTrWUYBCGvlY1mrI3j80mZ4VTj > >>> >> BErsSlqnjUyFKmaI7YNKyARCloMroz3wqdy/wpg/63Io62nmh5IyY+WO8hPo > >>> >> ae22 > >>> >> =AX+L > >>> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ceph-users mailing list > >>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |