-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I'm sure I have a log of a 1,000 second block somewhere, I'll have to look around for it. I'll try turning that knob and see what happens. I'll come back with the results. Thanks, - ---------------- Robert LeBlanc PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > On Wed, 14 Oct 2015, Robert LeBlanc wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> It seems in our situation the cluster is just busy, usually with >> really small RBD I/O. We have gotten things to where it doesn't happen >> as much in a steady state, but when we have an OSD fail (mostly from >> an XFS log bug we hit at least once a week), it is very painful as the >> OSD exits and enters the cluster. We are working to split the PGs a >> couple of fold, but this is a painful process for the reasons >> mentioned in the tracker. Matt Benjamin and Sam Just had a discussion >> on IRC about getting the other primaries to throttle back when such a >> situation occurs so that each primary OSD has some time to service >> client I/O and to push back on the clients to slow down in these >> situations. >> >> In our case a single OSD can lock up a VM for a very long time while >> others are happily going about their business. Instead of looking like >> the cluster is out of I/O, it looks like there is an error. If >> pressure is pushed back to clients, it would show up as all of the >> clients slowing down a little instead of one or two just hanging for >> even over 1,000 seconds. > > This 1000 seconds figure is very troubling. Do you have logs? I suspect > this is a different issue than the prioritization one in the log from the > other day (which only waited about 30s for higher-priority replica > requests). > >> My thoughts is that each OSD should have some percentage to time given >> to servicing client I/O whereas now it seems that replica I/O can >> completely starve client I/O. I understand why replica traffic needs a >> higher priority, but I think some balance needs to be attained. > > We currently do 'fair' prioritized queueing with a token bucket filter > only for requests with priorities <= 63. Simply increasing this threshold > so that it covers replica requests might be enough. But... we'll be > starting client requests locally at the expense of in-progress client > writes elsewhere. Given that the amount of (our) client-related work we > do is always bounded by the msgr throttle, I think this is okay since we > only make the situation worse by a fixed factor. (We still don't address > the possibilty that we are replica for every other osd in the system and > could be flooded by N*(max client ops per osd). > > It's this line: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/osd/OSD.cc#L8334 > > sage > > > >> >> Thanks, >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: Mailvelope v1.2.0 >> Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com >> >> wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWHne4CRDmVDuy+mK58QAAwYUP/RzTrmsYV7Vi6e64Yikh >> YMMI4Cxt4mBWbTIOsb8iRY98EkqhUWd/kz45OoFQgwE4hS3O5Lksf3u0pcmS >> I+Gz6jQ4/K0B6Mc3Rt19ofD1cA9s6BLnHSqTFZEUVapiHftj84ewIRLts9dg >> YCJJeaaOV8fu07oZvnumRTAKOzWPyQizQKBGx7nujIg13Us0st83C8uANzoX >> hKvlA2qVMXO4rLgR7nZMcgj+X+/79v7MDycM3WP/Q21ValsNfETQVhN+XxC8 >> D/IUfX4/AKUEuF4WBEck4Z/Wx9YD+EvpLtQVLy21daazRApWES/iy089F63O >> k9RHp189c4WCduFBaTvZj2cdekAq/Wl50O1AdafYFptWqYhw+aKpihI+yMrX >> +LhWgoYALD6wyXr0KVDZZszIRZbO/PSjct8z13aXBJoJm9r0Vyazfhi9jNW9 >> Z/1GD7gv5oHymf7eR9u7T8INdjNzn6Qllj7XCyZfQv5TYxsRWMZxf5vEkpMB >> nAYANoZcNs4ZSIy+OdFOb6nM66ujrytWL1DqWusJUEM/GauBw0fxnQ/i+pMy >> XU8gYbG1um5YY8jrtvvkhnbHdeO/k24/cH7MGslxeezBPnMNzmqj3qVdiX1H >> EBbyBBtp8OF+pKExrmZc2w01W/Nxl6GbVoG+IKJ61FgwKOXEiMwb0wv5mu30 >> eP3D >> =R0O9 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> ---------------- >> Robert LeBlanc >> PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Haomai Wang wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Sage Weil wrote: >> >> 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.... >> > >> > I guess the bug tracker(http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/13482) is >> > related to this thread. >> > >> > So is it means that there exists live lock with client op and repop? >> > We permit all clients issue too much client ops which cause some OSDs >> > bottleneck, then actually other OSDs maybe idle enough and accept more >> > client ops. Finally, all osds are stuck into the bottleneck OSD. It >> > seemed reasonable, but why it will last so long? >> > >> >> >> >> 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 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 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best Regards, >> > >> > Wheat >> -- >> 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 wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJWHpfaCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAkxEQAJ8Wh0o0rkrhzyHqxUbB 7N3H4ydA9qH9CFcuIUGG/vQTjHJthMdaxMKTH95nvRqoBtL6ynC9aDJd+vMo ntlPdWq2JaDe2fGTxXu97nIur77RAz5fngXlcfVc9+gZtzne6UJSP0kdXC0u aOtU0jaT72mZmL1DYtrPMV2WeQlxe6eatKE45JNuJtYOWIxY/Ne8L+WtEzs5 jUCuTBo3gzB/hEwY16jaVu3/UFgEISDuPMe9yPaMkJyQIdZd2D8mTLvncw5Y dgFZ9//7/vl+8EpveQVfaZWxllW5BxWmz7S0CSMXzVVwNH5DCOS7ZXx/oi6o 64oi5jv24DOvkcUpJ0IFktcT8gb2iLwoaHi21SgE5pdfFPI6Ef+FApRZ6Dd0 VGUhWS/5B6mqAUszdiQgTDFqy+l3WmDXPX2+6thb77umO1q1KpctxFjWvhSz Vk8xrrqkwlxl3CxugNeVys1PI2ymM5TAk/YttqXp5xpyj9w6ipKnoFsSIy7R oGZeV5x4NdbMDnPzV9ydewgJA1UEkwvEjCB7fiE25OYjY3yqLm7ElgJVtX5e Njx7a/yrXjJkB3ogYyZzCuOmGldALzbyK8vv6J2X2hWVYDDI4choPYova5Oz IwkI/E/8dmO4KAP2d71Uhoc4fxP6BV5fpvKQ0k1Kf/DAx3sDGCw2bgwK59fM r5t1 =TwBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |