What's your cache mode? In the master branch, I would expect that class method ops should force a promotion to the cache tier if the base tier is an EC pool [1]. [1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/osd/OSD.cc#L8905 -- Jason Dillaman ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nick Fisk" <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Samuel Just" <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Jason Dillaman" <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx>, ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:46:38 PM > Subject: RE: cls_rbd ops on rbd_id.$name objects in EC pool > > Hi Sage, > > Do you think this will get fixed in time for the Jewel release? It still > seems to happen in Master and is definitely related to the recency setting. > I'm guessing that the info command does some sort of read and then a write. > In the old behaviour the read would have always triggered a promotion? > > > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ ceph osd pool get cache1 min_read_recency_for_promote > min_read_recency_for_promote: 8 > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ ceph osd pool get cache1 min_write_recency_for_promote > min_write_recency_for_promote: 8 > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rbd -p cache1 create Test99 --size=10G > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rbd -p cache1 info Test99 > rbd image 'Test99': > size 10240 MB in 2560 objects > order 22 (4096 kB objects) > block_name_prefix: rbd_data.e8e734689a5e > format: 2 > features: layering > flags: > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rados -p cache1 cache-flush rbd_id.Test99 > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rados -p cache1 cache-evict rbd_id.Test99 > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rbd -p cache1 info Test99 > 2016-02-11 17:39:40.942030 7f0006eb3700 -1 librbd::image::OpenRequest: failed > to retrieve image id: (95) Operation not supported > 2016-02-11 17:39:40.942205 7f00066b2700 -1 librbd::ImageState: failed to open > image: (95) Operation not supported > rbd: error opening image Test99: (95) Operation not supported > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ ceph osd pool set cache1 min_read_recency_for_promote 0 > set pool 12 min_read_recency_for_promote to 0 > nick@Ceph-Test:~$ rbd -p cache1 info Test99 > rbd image 'Test99': > size 10240 MB in 2560 objects > order 22 (4096 kB objects) > block_name_prefix: rbd_data.e8e734689a5e > format: 2 > features: layering > flags: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick Fisk [mailto:nick@xxxxxxxxxx] > > Sent: 05 February 2016 19:58 > > To: 'Sage Weil' <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'Samuel Just' <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: 'Jason Dillaman' <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx>; ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: RE: cls_rbd ops on rbd_id.$name objects in EC pool > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ceph-devel- > > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sage Weil > > > Sent: 05 February 2016 18:45 > > > To: Samuel Just <sjust@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Jason Dillaman <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx>; Nick Fisk <nick@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: cls_rbd ops on rbd_id.$name objects in EC pool > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Feb 2016, Samuel Just wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Jason Dillaman <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > #1 and #2 are awkward for existing pools since we would need a > > > > > tool to inject dummy omap values within existing images. Can the > > > > > cache tier force-promote it from the EC pool to the cache when an > > > > > unsupported op is encountered? There is logic like that in > > > > > jewel/master for handling the proxied writes. > > > > > > That sounded familiar but I couldn't find this in the code or history > > > between infernalis and master. And then I went back and was unable to > > > reproduce the a problem on either infernalis branch or v9.2.0. > > > > > > Nick, I was doing > > > 1013 ./rbd -p ec create foo --size 10 > > > 1014 ./rbd -p ec info foo > > > 1015 ./rados -p ec-cache cache-flush rbd_id.foo > > > 1016 ./rados -p ec-cache cache-evict rbd_id.foo > > > 1017 ./rbd -p ec info foo > > > 1018 ./rados -p ec-cache ls - > > > > > > The rbd.get_id is successfully forcing a promotion. > > > > > > Which makes me think something else is going on... Nick, can you try > > > to reproduce this with a userspace librbd client? 'rbd info' will do > > > a few basic operations, but if that isn't problematic, try 'rbd > > > bench-write' or 'rbd export', which will do real IO? > > > > Hi Sage, > > > > Just tried again and I can confirm its definitely not working, but I think > > I may > > have stumbled on the reason why. > > > > First apologies for not mentioning it before, but I am still running that > > recency > > fix on Infernalis. Initially I thought this was a flushing issue as I just > > assumed > > those objects shouldn't get flushed out at all. But after reading your > > email > > where you said it forced the promotion, it struck me that the broken > > recency > > behaviour may have been masking this issue. With the fix it would only > > promote if the object was hot enough, which it probably in most cases > > wouldn't be. As a test I set my recency's down to 0 and tried the steps > > above > > again and this time it worked. Does this make sense? > > > > Nick > > > > > > > > sage > > > > > > > > > > -Sam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Jason Dillaman > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: "Sage Weil" <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> To: "Nick Fisk" <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> Cc: "Jason Dillaman" <dillaman@xxxxxxxxxx>, > > > > >> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 10:42:17 AM > > > > >> Subject: cls_rbd ops on rbd_id.$name objects in EC pool > > > > >> > > > > >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Nick Fisk wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > > > > >> > > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > > >> > > On Behalf Of Jason Dillaman > > > > >> > > Sent: 27 January 2016 14:25 > > > > >> > > To: Nick Fisk <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> > > Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: Possible Cache Tier Bug - Can > > > > >> > > someone confirm > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Are you running with an EC pool behind the cache tier? I know > > > > >> > > there was an issue with the first Infernalis release where > > > > >> > > unsupported ops were being proxied down to the EC pool, > > > > >> > > resulting in that same error. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Jason, yes I am. 3x Replicated pool on top of an EC pool. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > It's probably something similar to what you mention. Either the > > > > >> > client should be able to access the RBD header object on the > > > > >> > base pool, or it should be flagged so that it can't be evicted. > > > > >> > > > > >> I just confirmed that the rbd_id.$name object doesn't have any > > > > >> omap, so from rados's perspective, flushing and evicting it is > > > > >> fine. But yeah, the cls_rbd ops aren't permitted in the EC pool. > > > > >> > > > > >> In master/jewel we have a cache-pin function that prevents an > > > > >> object from being flushed. > > > > >> > > > > >> A few options are: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1) Have cls_rbd cache-pin it's objects. > > > > >> > > > > >> 2) Have cls_rbd put an omap key on the object to indirectly do > > > > >> the > > > same. > > > > >> > > > > >> 3) Add a requires-cls type object flag that keeps hte object out > > > > >> of an EC pool *until* it eventually supports cls ops. > > > > >> > > > > >> I'd lean toward 1 since it's simple and explicit, and when we > > > > >> eventually make classes work we can remove the cache-pin behavior > > > from cls_rbd. > > > > >> It's harder to fix in infernalis unless we also backport > > > > >> cache-pin/unpin ops, too, so maybe #2 would be a simple > > > > >> infernalis > > > workaround? > > > > >> > > > > >> Jason? Sam? > > > > >> sage > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > -- > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Jason Dillaman > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> > > > From: "Nick Fisk" <nick@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > >> > > > To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:46:53 AM > > > > >> > > > Subject: Possible Cache Tier Bug - Can someone > > > > >> > > > confirm > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Hi All, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I think I have stumbled on a bug. I'm running Infernalis > > > > >> > > > (Kernel 4.4 on the > > > > >> > > > client) and it seems that if the RBD header object gets > > > > >> > > > evicted from the cache pool then you can no longer map it. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Steps to reproduce > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > rbd -p cache1 create Test --size=10G rbd - p cache1 map > > > > >> > > > Test > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > /dev/rbd1 <-Works!! > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > rbd unmap /dev/rbd1 > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > rados -p cache1 cache-flush rbd_id.Test rados -p cache1 > > > > >> > > > cache-evict rbd_id.Test rbd - p cache1 map Test > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > rbd: sysfs write failed > > > > >> > > > rbd: map failed: (95) Operation not supported > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > or with the rbd-nbd client > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2016-01-27 13:39:52.686770 7f9e54162b00 -1 > > > > >> > > > asok(0x561837b88360) > > > > >> > > > AdminSocketConfigObs::init: failed: > > > AdminSocket::bind_and_listen: > > > > >> > > > failed to bind the UNIX domain socket to > > > > >> > > > '/var/run/ceph/ceph-client.admin.asok': (17) File exists > > > > >> > > > 2016-01-27 13:39:52.703987 7f9e32ffd700 -1 > > > librbd::image::OpenRequest: > > > > >> > > > failed to retrieve image id: (95) Operation not supported > > > > >> > > > rbd-nbd: failed to map, status: (95) Operation not > > > > >> > > > supported > > > > >> > > > 2016-01-27 13:39:52.704138 7f9e327fc700 -1 > > > > >> > > > librbd::ImageState: failed to open image: (95) Operation > > > > >> > > > not supported > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Nick > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > > > ceph-users mailing list > > > > >> > > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> > > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > > ceph-users mailing list > > > > >> > > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> > > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > ceph-users mailing list > > > > >> > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > >> 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 > > > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" > > > in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More > > majordomo > > > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |