Здравствуйте! On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:45:42PM +0200, jan wrote: > Have you tried running iperf between the nodes? Capturing a pcap of the (failing) Ceph comms from both sides could help narrow it down. > Is there any SDN layer involved that could add overhead/padding to the frames? No other layers, only 2x Nexus 5020 with virtual portchannels. All other I will check on Monday. > What about some intermediate MTU like 8000 - does that work? Not tested. I will. > Oh and if there's any bonding/trunking involved, beware that you need to set the same MTU and offloads on all interfaces on certains kernels - flags like MTU/offloads should propagate between the master/slave interfaces but in reality it's not the case and they get reset even if you unplug/replug the ethernet cable. Yes, I understand it :) I was setting parameters on both interfaces and checked it out using "ip link". > Jan >> On 09 Oct 2015, at 13:21, Max A. Krasilnikov <pseudo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:05:59AM +0200, jan wrote: >> >>> Are there any errors on the NICs? (ethtool -s ethX) >> >> No errors. Neither on nodes, nor on switches. >> >>> Also take a look at the switch and look for flow control statistics - do you have flow control enabled or disabled? >> >> flow control disabled everywhere. >> >>> We had to disable flow control as it would pause all IO on the port whenever any path got congested which you don't want to happen with a cluster like Ceph. It's better to let the frame drop/retransmit in this case (and you should size it so it doesn't happen in any case). >>> And how about NIC offloads? Do they play nice with jumbo frames? I wouldn't put my money on that... >> >> I tried to completely disable all offloads and setting mtu back to 9000 after. >> No luck. >> I am speaking with my NOC about MTU in 10G network. If I have update, I will >> write here. I can hardly beleave that it is ceph side, but nothing is >> impossible. >> >>> Jan >> >> >>>> On 09 Oct 2015, at 10:48, Max A. Krasilnikov <pseudo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 11:44:09PM -0600, robert wrote: >>>> >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>> >>>>> Sage, >>>> >>>>> After trying to bisect this issue (all test moved the bisect towards >>>>> Infernalis) and eventually testing the Infernalis branch again, it >>>>> looks like the problem still exists although it is handled a tad >>>>> better in Infernalis. I'm going to test against Firefly/Giant next >>>>> week and then try and dive into the code to see if I can expose any >>>>> thing. >>>> >>>>> If I can do anything to provide you with information, please let me know. >>>> >>>> I have fixed my troubles by setting MTU back to 1500 from 9000 in 2x10G network >>>> between nodes (2x Cisco Nexus 5020, one link per switch, LACP, linux bounding >>>> driver: bonding mode=4 lacp_rate=1 xmit_hash_policy=1 miimon=100, Intel 82599ES >>>> Adapter, non-intel sfp+). When setting it to 9000 on nodes and 9216 on Nexus 5020 >>>> switch with Jumbo frames enabled i have performance drop and slow requests. When >>>> setting 1500 on nodes and not touching Nexus all problems are fixed. >>>> >>>> I have rebooted all my ceph services when changing MTU and changing things to >>>> 9000 and 1500 several times in order to be sure. It is reproducable in my >>>> environment. >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>> >>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWF1QlCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAWLgP/2l+TkcpeKihDxF8h/kw >>>>> YFffNWODNfOMq8FVDQkQceo2mFCFc29JnBYiAeqW+XPelwuU5S86LG998aUB >>>>> BvIU4EHaJNJ31X1NCIA7nwi8rXlFYfSG2qQn58+IzqZoWCQM5vD/THISV1rP >>>>> qQKtoOAEuRxz+vOAJGI1A1xJSOiFwTRjs4LjE1zYjSP26LdEF61D/lb+AVzV >>>>> ufxi/ci6mAla/4VTAH4VqEviDgC8AbAZnWFGfUPcTUxJQS99kFrfjJnWvgyF >>>>> V9EmWtQCvhRO74hQLBqspOwdAxEJesPfGcJT1LjR0eEAMWvbGPtaqbSFAEWa >>>>> jjyy5wP9+4NnGLdhba6UBtLphjqTcl0e2vVwRj0zLhI14moAOlbhIKmZ1Dt+ >>>>> 1P6vfgOUGvO76xgDMwrVKRoQgWJO/0Tup9+oqInnNYgf4W+ZWsLgLgo7ETAF >>>>> VcI7LP1wkwAI3lz5YphY/TnKNGs6i+wVjKBamOt3R1yz9WeylaG0T6xgGHrs >>>>> VugrRSUuO+ND9+mE5EsUgITCZoaavXJESJMb30XkK6hYGB+T/q+hBafc6Wle >>>>> Jgs+aT2m1erdSyZn0ZC9a6CjWmwJXY6FCSGhE53BbefBxmCFxn+8tVav+Q8W >>>>> 7s14TntP6ex4ca7eTwGuSXC9FU5fAVa+3+3aXDAC1QPAkeVkXyB716W1XG6b >>>>> BCFo >>>>> =GJL4 >>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> ---------------- >>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>> >>>>>> We forgot to upload the ceph.log yesterday. It is there now. >>>>>> - ---------------- >>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I upped the debug on about everything and ran the test for about 40 >>>>>>> minutes. I took OSD.19 on ceph1 doen and then brought it back in. >>>>>>> There was at least one op on osd.19 that was blocked for over 1,000 >>>>>>> seconds. Hopefully this will have something that will cast a light on >>>>>>> what is going on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are going to upgrade this cluster to Infernalis tomorrow and rerun >>>>>>> the test to verify the results from the dev cluster. This cluster >>>>>>> matches the hardware of our production cluster but is not yet in >>>>>>> production so we can safely wipe it to downgrade back to Hammer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Logs are located at http://dev.v3trae.net/~jlavoy/ceph/logs/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let me know what else we can do to help. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFFwACRDmVDuy+mK58QAAs/UP/1L+y7DEfHqD/5OpkiNQ >>>>>>> xuEEDm7fNJK58tLRmKsCrDrsFUvWCjiqUwboPg/E40e2GN7Lt+VkhMUEUWoo >>>>>>> e3L20ig04c8Zu6fE/SXX3lnvayxsWTPcMnYI+HsmIV9E/efDLVLEf6T4fvXg >>>>>>> 5dKLiqQ8Apu+UMVfd1+aKKDdLdnYlgBCZcIV9AQe1GB8X2VJJhmNWh6TQ3Xr >>>>>>> gNXDexBdYjFBLu84FXOITd3ZtyUkgx/exCUMmwsJSc90jduzipS5hArvf7LN >>>>>>> HD6m1gBkZNbfWfc/4nzqOQnKdY1pd9jyoiQM70jn0R5b2BlZT0wLjiAJm+07 >>>>>>> eCCQ99TZHFyeu1LyovakrYncXcnPtP5TfBFZW952FWQugupvxPCcaduz+GJV >>>>>>> OhPAJ9dv90qbbGCO+8kpTMAD1aHgt/7+0/hKZTg8WMHhua68SFCXmdGAmqje >>>>>>> IkIKswIAX4/uIoo5mK4TYB5HdEMJf9DzBFd+1RzzfRrrRalVkBfsu5ChFTx3 >>>>>>> mu5LAMwKTslvILMxAct0JwnwkOX5Gd+OFvmBRdm16UpDaDTQT2DfykylcmJd >>>>>>> Cf9rPZxUv0ZHtZyTTyP2e6vgrc7UM/Ie5KonABxQ11mGtT8ysra3c9kMhYpw >>>>>>> D6hcAZGtdvpiBRXBC5gORfiFWFxwu5kQ+daUhgUIe/O/EWyeD0rirZoqlLnZ >>>>>>> EDrG >>>>>>> =BZVw >>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On my second test (a much longer one), it took nearly an hour, but a >>>>>>>> few messages have popped up over a 20 window. Still far less than I >>>>>>>> have been seeing. >>>>>>>> - ---------------- >>>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll capture another set of logs. Is there any other debugging you >>>>>>>>> want turned up? I've seen the same thing where I see the message >>>>>>>>> dispatched to the secondary OSD, but the message just doesn't show up >>>>>>>>> for 30+ seconds in the secondary OSD logs. >>>>>>>>> - ---------------- >>>>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA256 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I can't think of anything. In my dev cluster the only thing that has >>>>>>>>>>> changed is the Ceph versions (no reboot). What I like is even though >>>>>>>>>>> the disks are 100% utilized, it is preforming as I expect now. Client >>>>>>>>>>> I/O is slightly degraded during the recovery, but no blocked I/O when >>>>>>>>>>> the OSD boots or during the recovery period. This is with >>>>>>>>>>> max_backfills set to 20, one backfill max in our production cluster is >>>>>>>>>>> painful on OSD boot/recovery. I was able to reproduce this issue on >>>>>>>>>>> our dev cluster very easily and very quickly with these settings. So >>>>>>>>>>> far two tests and an hour later, only the blocked I/O when the OSD is >>>>>>>>>>> marked out. We would love to see that go away too, but this is far >>>>>>>>>> (me too!) >>>>>>>>>>> better than what we have now. This dev cluster also has >>>>>>>>>>> osd_client_message_cap set to default (100). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We need to stay on the Hammer version of Ceph and I'm willing to take >>>>>>>>>>> the time to bisect this. If this is not a problem in Firefly/Giant, >>>>>>>>>>> you you prefer a bisect to find the introduction of the problem >>>>>>>>>>> (Firefly/Giant -> Hammer) or the introduction of the resolution >>>>>>>>>>> (Hammer -> Infernalis)? Do you have some hints to reduce hitting a >>>>>>>>>>> commit that prevents a clean build as that is my most limiting factor? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nothing comes to mind. I think the best way to find this is still to see >>>>>>>>>> it happen in the logs with hammer. The frustrating thing with that log >>>>>>>>>> dump you sent is that although I see plenty of slow request warnings in >>>>>>>>>> the osd logs, I don't see the requests arriving. Maybe the logs weren't >>>>>>>>>> turned up for long enough? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sage >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> - ---------------- >>>>>>>>>>> Robert LeBlanc >>>>>>>>>>> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Sage Weil wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 6 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Good to hear. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> FWIW I looked through the logs and all of the slow request no flag point >>>>>>>>>>>> messages came from osd.163... and the logs don't show when they arrived. >>>>>>>>>>>> My guess is this OSD has a slower disk than the others, or something else >>>>>>>>>>>> funny is going on? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I spot checked another OSD at random (60) where I saw a slow request. It >>>>>>>>>>>> was stuck peering for 10s of seconds... waiting on a pg log message from >>>>>>>>>>>> osd.163. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sage >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -----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 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 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 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 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 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>>>>>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFBoOCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA7oYP/1yVPx66DovoUJiSDunA >>>>>>>>>>> NjIXWnKzx77aQMDwueZ0woC8PvgsX4JpLVH90Gh1MOJWyt2L4Qp+n60loSiI >>>>>>>>>>> Q5xU1NMYiup8YPlHqyslBxtqCPhcN1R8XhxN212R4uyVBIgjulkkEFiiQf8R >>>>>>>>>>> 5Uq5rDy+Vqmbla3enekV9vpAJQhVdfxvhdnN9/tSC3I5JZm+6VW9PGmwvTL4 >>>>>>>>>>> HK5UIz8luvtBWCWXYm2m7ZCUKYq0oWfdVDGEpEV473yyYwoVyvTBFuNNNbpu >>>>>>>>>>> kdxZ422Ztv2yj5phIQgU88Q/W5NY0awW25+16AMZNb6zCbF06hvQ9SjpydGu >>>>>>>>>>> 6vokj3uCOImMZpdJlyMuj6IjIkB27bnJer7zVLM3tDzftPzwT8ia8M3LvMWE >>>>>>>>>>> sD9Dl2jx5EdFZYPMxoHF4WnD4SQtUxr+cpcI/Ij96RfXz1cMbMbVdZbWXkfz >>>>>>>>>>> gEY46SXuM8yMi7wzJHwd4kI9q8A+ZZDpsDuTyavMr1rqZX61H+Gzc3rNI7lc >>>>>>>>>>> lkJ63hfYMPCdYggnUT8mAF+cwXxq66SclwbmBYM8lbrEPuuTZzZp7veLJr5g >>>>>>>>>>> /PO1abPcJVYq5ZP7i1iELEac6WvDWcJgImvkF+JZAN57URNpdJA03KsVkIt7 >>>>>>>>>>> H5n1Y8zUv7QcVMwHo/Os30vfiPmUHxg9DFbtUU8otpcf3g+udDggWHeuiZiG >>>>>>>>>>> 6Kfk >>>>>>>>>>> =/gR6 >>>>>>>>>>> -----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 v1.2.0 >>>>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFChuCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAfNsQAMGNu925hGNsCTuY4X7V >>>>>>>>> x71rdicFIn41I12KYtmhWl0U/V9GpUwLkOAKzeAcQiK2FgBBYRle0pANqE2K >>>>>>>>> Thf4YBJ5oEXZ72WOB14jaggiQkZwiTZLo6c69JLZADaM5NEXD/2mM77HyVLN >>>>>>>>> SP5v7FSqtnlzA53aZ7hUZn5r20VfOl/peOJGJz7C393hy3gBjr+P4LKsLE2L >>>>>>>>> QO0lNj4mJZVnVXbxqJp9Q8xn86vmfXK2sofqbAv2wjkT2C8gM9DkgLF+UJjc >>>>>>>>> mCSL9EUDFHD82BGsWzvYYFci686bIUC9IxJXKLORYKjzH3ueGHhiK3/apIi4 >>>>>>>>> 7DA0159nObAVNNz8AvvJnnjK94KrfcqpD3inFT7++WiNWTWbYljC7eukEM8L >>>>>>>>> QyrcMnbuomjT87I9wB9zNwa/Pt+AepdwSf7qAv1VVYrop3nJxp8bPVCzvkrr >>>>>>>>> MV/gxv3esOF68nOoQ9yt8DyHFihpg0nqSPjY3xDS7qZ05u3jnWN4rgkNxmyR >>>>>>>>> rOpwjVLUINAkVjfAM2FL2sW6wX1tKPd947CgMrAgcX0ChwZ1xYzt6xdS0p+R >>>>>>>>> gciSgw7nfCvwFmpou0DnqUdTN3K0zvM9zDhQ/b9u7JW3CEZLJXMoi99C4n3g >>>>>>>>> RfilE0rvScnx7uTI7mo94Pwy0MYFdGw04sNtFjwjIhRFPSsMUu+NSHDJe26U >>>>>>>>> JFPi >>>>>>>>> =ofgq >>>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>>>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFDDOCRDmVDuy+mK58QAA0kUP/1rfRQa5Us9b/VCvKrhk >>>>>>>> BYrde1/FBybKBVXsuXVU8Dq124A1e4L682AhmQPUeVP8PQLoqS/VFSl0h7i6 >>>>>>>> 28AzydDaBTTjnrp6ZzVbtmKtm8WhmtSTFvWTlu/yJmRXAht9YozmFCByBfIY >>>>>>>> GYvOhZzjvbxBKfwnwq97QkS7xfY2tss/BmaOvSVTX7naYaOF+HRwZMSt+BF4 >>>>>>>> 9vg9BLSL3Aic0BnvdM64TWkDaHp/3gwGSmyMn8Q2Sa9CqUTddKQx2HXN6doo >>>>>>>> gIyxCj+dIw2Pt73u2NoiYv8ZhTuS3QYM4n0rRBxj8Wr/EeNwGAOwdDSgbOxf >>>>>>>> OvDyozzmCpQyW3h/nkdQJW5mWsJmyDIiGxHDdUn7Vgemg+Bbod0ACdoJiwct >>>>>>>> /BIRVQe2Ee1nZQFoKBOhvaWO6+ePJR7CVfLjMkZBTzKZBjt2tfkq17G5KTdS >>>>>>>> EsehvG/+vfFJkANL5Xh6eo9ptlHbFW8I/44pvUtGi2JwsN487l56XR9DqEKM >>>>>>>> 7Cmj9Ox205YxjqcBjhWIJQTok99lvrhDX9d7HHxIeTcmouvqPz4LTcCySRtC >>>>>>>> xE/GcEGAAYWGPTwf9u8ULm9Rh2Z90OnKpqtCtuuWiwRRL9VU/tLlvqmHvEZM >>>>>>>> 73qhiLQZka5I72B2SAEtJnDt2sX3NJ4unvH4zWKLRFTTm4M0qk6xUL1JfqNz >>>>>>>> JYNo >>>>>>>> =msX2 >>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>> >>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >>>>>> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >>>>>> >>>>>> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWFXGPCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAx38P/1sn6TA8hH+F2kd1A2Pq >>>>>> IU2cg1pFcH+kw21G8VO+BavfBaBoSETHEEuMXg5SszTIcL/HyziBLJos0C0j >>>>>> Vu9I0/YtblQ15enzFqKFPosdc7qij9DPJxXRkx41sJZsxvSVky+URcPpcKk6 >>>>>> w8Lwuq9IupesQ19ZeJkCEWFVhKz/i2E9/VXfylBgFVlkICD+5pfx6/Aq7nCP >>>>>> 4gboyha07zpPlDqoA7xgT+6v2zlYC80saGcA1m2XaAUdPF/17l6Mq9+Glv7E >>>>>> 3KeUf7jmMTJQRGBZSInFgUpPwUQKvF5OSGb3YQlzofUy5Es+wH3ccqZ+mlIY >>>>>> szuBLAtN6zhFFPCs6016hiragiUhLk97PItXaKdDJKecuyRdShlJrXJmtX+j >>>>>> NdM14TkBPTiLtAd/IZEEhIIpdvQH8YSl3LnEZ5gywggaY4Pk3JLFIJPgLpEb >>>>>> T8hJnuiaQaYxERQ0nRoBL4LAXARseSrOuVt2EAD50Yb/5JEwB9FQlN758rb1 >>>>>> AE/xhpK6d53+RlkPODKxXx816hXvDP6NADaC78XGmx+A4FfepdxBijGBsmOQ >>>>>> 7SxAZe469K0E6EAfClc664VzwuvBEZjwTg1eK5Z6VS/FDTH/RxTKeFhlbUIT >>>>>> XpezlP7XZ1/YRrJ/Eg7nb1Dv0MYQdu18tQ6QBv+C1ZsmxYLlHlcf6BZ3gNar >>>>>> rZW5 >>>>>> =dKn9 >>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> WBR, Max A. Krasilnikov >>>> ColoCall Data Center >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ceph-users mailing list >>>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> -- >> WBR, Max A. Krasilnikov >> ColoCall Data Center -- WBR, Max A. Krasilnikov ColoCall Data Center _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |