On 16 May 2016 16:36, "John Spray" <jspray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
> <bdandrus@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Both client and server are Jewel 10.2.0
>
> So the fuse client, correct? If you are up for investigating further,
> with potential client bugs (or performance issues) it is often useful
> to compare the fuse vs. kernel clients (using the most recent kernel
> you can) to work out what's misbehaving.
>
> > "All kinds of issues" include that EVERY node ended up with the cache pressure message, even if they had done no access at all.
>
> Hmm, interesting. I wonder if we do have a bug where inactive clients
> are being "unfairly" asked to clear some cache content but are
> appearing not to do so because there isn't anything much in their
> cache. To be clear, when you say "no access at all", you mean a
> client that was mounted and then just sat there (i.e. not even an ls),
> right?
>
> Are any of the clients holding a lot of files open? Roughly what is
> the workload doing?
>
Could it be updatedb on the clients? Check that the right types are in PRUNEFS and mount point is in PRUNEPATHS.
-- Dan
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
