On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> I downgraded to the hammer gitbuilder branch, but it looks like I've
> passed the point of no return:
>
> 2015-10-06 09:44:52.210873 7fd3dd8b78c0 -1 ERROR: on disk data
> includes unsupported features:
> compat={},rocompat={},incompat={7=support shec erasure code}
> 2015-10-06 09:44:52.210922 7fd3dd8b78c0 -1 error checking features:
> (1) Operation not permitted
In that case, mark all osds down, upgrade again, and they'll be
allowed to start. The restriction is that each osd can't go backwards,
and post-hammer osds can't talk to pre-hammer osds.
sage
>
> ----------------
> Robert LeBlanc
> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote:
> >> Thanks for your time Sage. It sounds like a few people may be helped if you
> >> can find something.
> >>
> >> I did a recursive chown as in the instructions (although I didn't know about
> >> the doc at the time). I did an osd debug at 20/20 but didn't see anything.
> >> I'll also do ms and make the logs available. I'll also review the document
> >> to make sure I didn't miss anything else.
> >
> > Oh.. I bet you didn't upgrade the osds to 0.94.4 (or latest hammer build)
> > first. They won't be allowed to boot until that happens... all upgrades
> > must stop at 0.94.4 first. And that isn't released yet.. we'll try to
> > do that today. In the meantime, you can use the hammer gitbuilder
> > build...
> >
> > sage
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Robert LeBlanc
> >>
> >> Sent from a mobile device please excuse any typos.
> >>
> >> On Oct 6, 2015 6:37 AM, "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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#upgradin
> >> g-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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> --
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
