On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > After a weekend, I'm ready to hit this from a different direction. > > I replicated the issue with Firefly so it doesn't seem an issue that > has been introduced or resolved in any nearby version. I think overall > we may be seeing [1] to a great degree. From what I can extract from > the logs, it looks like in situations where OSDs are going up and > down, I see I/O blocked at the primary OSD waiting for peering and/or > the PG to become clean before dispatching the I/O to the replicas. > > In an effort to understand the flow of the logs, I've attached a small > 2 minute segment of a log I've extracted what I believe to be > important entries in the life cycle of an I/O along with my > understanding. If someone would be kind enough to help my > understanding, I would appreciate it. > > 2015-10-12 14:12:36.537906 7fb9d2c68700 10 -- 192.168.55.16:6800/11295 > >> 192.168.55.12:0/2013622 pipe(0x26c90000 sd=47 :6800 s=2 pgs=2 cs=1 > l=1 c=0x32c85440).reader got message 19 0x2af81700 > osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 > > - ->Messenger has recieved the message from the client (previous > entries in the 7fb9d2c68700 thread are the individual segments that > make up this message). > > 2015-10-12 14:12:36.537963 7fb9d2c68700 1 -- 192.168.55.16:6800/11295 > <== client.6709 192.168.55.12:0/2013622 19 ==== > osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 > ==== 235+0+4194304 (2317308138 0 2001296353) 0x2af81700 con 0x32c85440 > > - ->OSD process acknowledges that it has received the write. > > 2015-10-12 14:12:36.538096 7fb9d2c68700 15 osd.4 44 enqueue_op > 0x3052b300 prio 63 cost 4194304 latency 0.012371 > osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 > > - ->Not sure excatly what is going on here, the op is being enqueued somewhere.. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.542819 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 44 dequeue_op > 0x3052b300 prio 63 cost 4194304 latency 30.017094 > osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v > 5 pg pg[0.29( v 44'703 (0'0,44'703] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c > 40/44 32/32/10) [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'700 lcod 44'702 mlcod 44'702 > active+clean] > > - ->The op is dequeued from this mystery queue 30 seconds later in a > different thread. ^^ This is the problem. Everything after this looks reasonable. Looking at the other dequeue_op calls over this period, it looks like we're just overwhelmed with higher priority requests. New clients are 63, while osd_repop (replicated write from another primary) are 127 and replies from our own replicated ops are 196. We do process a few other prio 63 items, but you'll see that their latency is also climbing up to 30s over this period. The question is why we suddenly get a lot of them.. maybe the peering on other OSDs just completed so we get a bunch of these? It's also not clear to me what makes osd.4 or this op special. We expect a mix of primary and replica ops on all the OSDs, so why would we suddenly have more of them here.... sage > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.542912 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'703 (0'0,44'703] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'700 lcod 44'702 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > do_op osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 > may_write -> write-ordered flags ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected > > - ->Not sure what this message is. Look up of secondary OSDs? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.544999 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'703 (0'0,44'703] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'700 lcod 44'702 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > new_repop rep_tid 17815 on osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 > > - ->Dispatch write to secondaty OSDs? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545116 7fb9e2d3a700 1 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > --> 192.168.55.15:6801/32036 -- osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > -- ?+4195078 0x238fd600 con 0x32bcb5a0 > > - ->OSD dispatch write to OSD.0. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545132 7fb9e2d3a700 20 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > submit_message osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > remote, 192.168.55.15:6801/32036, have pipe. > > - ->Message sent to OSD.0. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545195 7fb9e2d3a700 1 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > --> 192.168.55.11:6801/13185 -- osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > -- ?+4195078 0x16edd200 con 0x3a37b20 > > - ->OSD dispatch write to OSD.5. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545210 7fb9e2d3a700 20 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > submit_message osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > remote, 192.168.55.11:6801/13185, have pipe. > > - ->Message sent to OSD.5. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545229 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'703 (0'0,44'703] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'700 lcod 44'702 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > append_log log((0'0,44'703], crt=44'700) [44'704 (44'691) modify > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 by > client.6709.0:67 2015-10-12 14:12:34.340082] > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.545268 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 luod=44'703 lua=44'703 crt=44'700 lcod 44'702 mlcod > 44'702 active+clean] add_log_entry 44'704 (44'691) modify > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 by > client.6709.0:67 2015-10-12 14:12:34.340082 > > - ->These record the OP in the journal log? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.563241 7fb9d326e700 20 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > >> 192.168.55.11:6801/13185 pipe(0x2d355000 sd=98 :6801 s=2 pgs=12 > cs=3 l=0 c=0x3a37b20).writer encoding 17337 features 37154696925806591 > 0x16edd200 osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > > - ->Writing the data to OSD.5? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.573938 7fb9d3874700 10 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > >> 192.168.55.15:6801/32036 pipe(0x3f96000 sd=176 :6801 s=2 pgs=8 cs=3 > l=0 c=0x32bcb5a0).reader got ack seq 1206 >= 1206 on 0x238fd600 > osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > > - ->Messenger gets ACK from OSD.0 that it reveiced that last packet? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.613425 7fb9d3874700 10 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > >> 192.168.55.15:6801/32036 pipe(0x3f96000 sd=176 :6801 s=2 pgs=8 cs=3 > l=0 c=0x32bcb5a0).reader got message 1146 0x3ffa480 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 > > - ->Messenger receives ack on disk from OSD.0. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.613447 7fb9d3874700 1 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > <== osd.0 192.168.55.15:6801/32036 1146 ==== > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 ==== > 83+0+0 (2772408781 0 0) 0x3ffa480 con 0x32bcb5a0 > > - ->OSD process gets on disk ACK from OSD.0. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.613478 7fb9d3874700 10 osd.4 44 handle_replica_op > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 epoch 44 > > - ->Primary OSD records the ACK (duplicate message?). Not sure how to > correlate that to the previous message other than by time. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.613504 7fb9d3874700 15 osd.4 44 enqueue_op > 0x120f9b00 prio 196 cost 0 latency 0.000250 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 > > - ->The reply is enqueued onto a mystery queue. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.627793 7fb9d6afd700 10 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > >> 192.168.55.11:6801/13185 pipe(0x2d355000 sd=98 :6801 s=2 pgs=12 > cs=3 l=0 c=0x3a37b20).reader got ack seq 17337 >= 17337 on 0x16edd200 > osd_repop(client.6709.0:67 0.29 > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 v 44'704) v1 > > - ->Messenger gets ACK from OSD.5 that it reveiced that last packet? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.628364 7fb9d6afd700 10 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > >> 192.168.55.11:6801/13185 pipe(0x2d355000 sd=98 :6801 s=2 pgs=12 > cs=3 l=0 c=0x3a37b20).reader got message 16477 0x21cef3c0 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 > > - ->Messenger receives ack on disk from OSD.5. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.628382 7fb9d6afd700 1 -- 192.168.55.16:6801/11295 > <== osd.5 192.168.55.11:6801/13185 16477 ==== > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 ==== > 83+0+0 (2104182993 0 0) 0x21cef3c0 con 0x3a37b20 > > - ->OSD process gets on disk ACK from OSD.5. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.628406 7fb9d6afd700 10 osd.4 44 handle_replica_op > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 epoch 44 > > - ->Primary OSD records the ACK (duplicate message?). Not sure how to > correlate that to the previous message other than by time. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:06.628426 7fb9d6afd700 15 osd.4 44 enqueue_op > 0x3e41600 prio 196 cost 0 latency 0.000180 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 > > - ->The reply is enqueued onto a mystery queue. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.124206 7fb9f4e9f700 0 log_channel(cluster) log > [WRN] : slow request 30.598371 seconds old, received at 2015-10-12 > 14:12:36.525724: osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) currently waiting for subops > from 0,5 > > - ->OP has not been dequeued to the client from the mystery queue yet. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.278449 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 luod=44'703 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod 44'702 mlcod > 44'702 active+clean] eval_repop repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 > rep_tid=17815 committed?=0 applied?=0 lock=0 > op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) > wants=ad > > - ->Not sure what this means. The OP has been completed on all replicas? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.278566 7fb9e0535700 10 osd.4 44 dequeue_op > 0x120f9b00 prio 196 cost 0 latency 0.665312 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 pg > pg[0.29( v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 > 32/32/10) [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 luod=44'703 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod > 44'702 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > > - ->One of the replica OPs is dequeued in a different thread > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.278809 7fb9e0535700 10 osd.4 44 dequeue_op > 0x3e41600 prio 196 cost 0 latency 0.650563 > osd_repop_reply(client.6709.0:67 0.29 ondisk, result = 0) v1 pg > pg[0.29( v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 > 32/32/10) [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 luod=44'703 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod > 44'702 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > > - ->The other replica OP is dequeued in the new thread > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.967469 7fb9efe95700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'702 > active+clean] eval_repop repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 rep_tid=17815 > committed?=1 applied?=0 lock=0 op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) wants=ad > > - ->Not sure what this does. A thread that joins the replica OPs with > the primary OP? > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.967515 7fb9efe95700 15 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'702 > active+clean] log_op_stats osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5 inb 4194304 outb 0 rlat > 0.000000 lat 31.441789 > > - ->Logs that the write has been committed to all replicas in the > primary journal? > > Not sure what the rest of these do, nor do I understand where the > client gets an ACK that the write is committed. > > 2015-10-12 14:13:07.967583 7fb9efe95700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 lua=44'703 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'702 > active+clean] sending commit on repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 > rep_tid=17815 committed?=1 applied?=0 lock=0 > op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) > 0x3a2f0840 > > 2015-10-12 14:13:10.351452 7fb9f0696700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'702 active+clean] > eval_repop repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 rep_tid=17815 committed?=1 > applied?=1 lock=0 op[0/1943]client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) wants=ad > > 2015-10-12 14:13:10.354089 7fb9f0696700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'703 active+clean] > removing repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 rep_tid=17815 committed?=1 > applied?=1 lock=0 op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) > > 2015-10-12 14:13:10.354163 7fb9f0696700 20 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'703 active+clean] > q front is repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 rep_tid=17815 committed?=1 > applied?=1 lock=0 op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) > > 2015-10-12 14:13:10.354199 7fb9f0696700 20 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'704 (0'0,44'704] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 crt=44'702 lcod 44'703 mlcod 44'703 active+clean] > remove_repop repgather(0x37ea3cc0 44'704 rep_tid=17815 committed?=1 > applied?=1 lock=0 op=osd_op(client.6709.0:67 > rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a [set-alloc-hint object_size > 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 0~4194304] 0.474a01a9 > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e44) v5) > > 2015-10-12 14:13:15.488448 7fb9e2d3a700 10 osd.4 pg_epoch: 44 pg[0.29( > v 44'707 (0'0,44'707] local-les=40 n=641 ec=1 les/c 40/44 32/32/10) > [4,5,0] r=0 lpr=32 luod=44'705 lua=44'705 crt=44'704 lcod 44'704 mlcod > 44'704 active+clean] append_log: trimming to 44'704 entries 44'704 > (44'691) modify > 474a01a9/rbd_data.103c74b0dc51.000000000000003a/head//0 by > client.6709.0:67 2015-10-12 14:12:34.340082 > > Thanks for hanging in there with me on this... > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg26633.html > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWHCx0CRDmVDuy+mK58QAAXf8P/j6MD52r2DLqOP9hKFAP > MJUktg8uqK1i8awtuIQhJHAPDZQF8EACOXg6RBuOz75iryCFKAJXk5exLXrE > pIZqY/0/JCsUEPuQGaMY9GVQNrTeB82F5VIu572i2xeFir4fUEcvllXSeR9O > CxSgaAncxUYGSXwsiCJ28QhwPCFXtCLACg1eTpghhAcOwY0t+z6ZB3vh+WxB > B8kRCdee78TVZOgeTnd66aBJUrr21Ir9aPqSm73uY561dyDmyxc4zPq+FDsJ > kuac+Ky9Lc6rqhxwRptbdx5i/EDzxj96EKEz2v4SFBmvzU8jtZlA8THJ6WlF > 6lZRpRIMfEqVu4neFcdUIct8+Brf7fuxOI7hbhUL5xq2I6yDSY8E2T8ImRoS > w8bSrjFV3wmnXSCHnFJPROqdhtlQlH1PkKPBRJeJrkrB1MloX0ybU4hNIr7Q > 4ZyzeLpD9sgL1vEfUVuCksgiVJhzlFOyqeRHcfpPEnLxyGL/+mLUa5lQ5m5l > m286ZnsMZGMzAdSA/tsqnTFzL0HbjkiWD/OMU5zThSKW2tZBNWg3xZE5Yia9 > zAbhxpvxqhKQ7nfmv3xeVJ1GKb9CuzfN9ZIGPltHvpA3rZf3I4+XVlWbbhDZ > z8Xp8Pw8f7neh89Tv3AT+krM1jrE1ZxOF5A2K4CxBcS3OEMc5UIZ2fy4dHSo > 0iTE > =t7nL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ---------------- > Robert LeBlanc > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 11:44 PM, Robert LeBlanc <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > 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
 |