-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 OK, an interesting point. Running ceph version 9.0.3-2036-g4f54a0d (4f54a0dd7c4a5c8bdc788c8b7f58048b2a28b9be) looks a lot better. I got messages when the OSD was marked out: 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961040 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 81 : cluster [WRN] 17 slow requests, 3 included below; oldest blocked for > 34.476006 secs 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961056 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 82 : cluster [WRN] slow request 32.913474 seconds old, received at 2015-10-06 11:52:14.047475: osd_op(client.600962.0:474 rbd_data.338102ae8944a.0000000000005270 [read 3302912~4096] 8.c74a4538 ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961066 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 83 : cluster [WRN] slow request 32.697545 seconds old, received at 2015-10-06 11:52:14.263403: osd_op(client.600960.0:583 rbd_data.3380f74b0dc51.000000000001ee75 [read 1016832~4096] 8.778d1be3 ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered 2015-10-06 11:52:46.961074 osd.13 192.168.55.12:6800/20870 84 : cluster [WRN] slow request 32.668006 seconds old, received at 2015-10-06 11:52:14.292942: osd_op(client.600955.0:571 rbd_data.3380f74b0dc51.0000000000019b09 [read 1034240~4096] 8.e87a6f58 ack+read+known_if_redirected e58744) currently waiting for peered But I'm not seeing the blocked messages when the OSD came back in. The OSD spindles have been running at 100% during this test. I have seen slowed I/O from the clients as expected from the extra load, but so far no blocked messages. I'm going to run some more tests. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFAzRCRDmVDuy+mK58QAASRYP/jrbKy5mptq/cSqJvB47 F/gEatsqU4/TwyIJg137DQTkONbHKnLgCZqsJLnCZRH8fFqtvY6g/Q/AA7Ks ouo5gvbjKM7pOm/uUn8kU44Xe15f/bkVHvWBECZzg8YJwinPAisp5R0m1HBC HLvsbeqV00m72TyfsZX4aj7lHdyvcdcIH2EVgX/db092VVXczK4q2gRoNr0Y 77BEr2Y/gPj5LM4b/aDG5AWY8dJZRlNz+B1CyLS+kIDXSaAbzul2UbAG6jNE KJEVxndMPfHLIdwg55+q8VTMIjqXcCM47cQhWFrKChgVD8byJxpc6E0TqOxs 1gtNE8AILoCSYKnwQZan+TBDGxki7rQxzMdNI+NLfhy1Mwd3lSCPsDtD7W/i tzNTr6aGz+wr+OPDQV5zrzLaPZYF3FLWN4n6RYNfnDramYzD76v+7kjdW4dE 5UVCtE7KGLCZ21fu6sln1b9q6lYXNtohAmAunIdqpo3FmHusRySyZzYKu1+9 zg/LHiArD/ddjkPxVWCTFBS17g/bESRcv2MsA30GS8J6k1zlQaLX5KeGg6Ql WJSmW8gFfEbXj/7JTrVtQWTdgjsegaySFnDisTWUR/hEM/NuKii4xfjI32M/ luUMXHZ8lTHk9C8MfZcpyPGvwp2FliD9LqaWOVPWtWZJcerEWcZVlEApg4qb fo5a =ahEi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------- Robert LeBlanc PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 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#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
 |