In Luminous 12.2.1, when running a GET on a large (1GB file) repeatedly for an hour from RGW, the following error was hit intermittently a number of times. The first error was hit after 45 minutes and then the error happened frequently for the remainder of the test. ERROR: flush_read_list(): d->client_cb->handle_data() returned -5 Here is some more context from the rgw log around one of the failures. 2017-10-10 18:20:32.321681 I | rgw: 2017-10-10 18:20:32.321643 7f8929f41700 1 civetweb: 0x55bd25899000: 10.32.0.1 - - [10/Oct/2017:18:19:07 +0000] "GET /bucket100/testfile.tst HTTP/1.1" 1 0 - aws-sdk-java/1.9.0 Linux/4.4.0-93-generic OpenJDK_64-Bit_Server_VM/25.131-b11/1.8.0_131 2017-10-10 18:20:32.383855 I | rgw: 2017-10-10 18:20:32.383786 7f8924736700 1 ====== starting new request req=0x7f892472f140 ===== 2017-10-10 18:20:46.605668 I | rgw: 2017-10-10 18:20:46.605576 7f894af83700 0 ERROR: flush_read_list(): d->client_cb->handle_data() returned -5 2017-10-10 18:20:46.605934 I | rgw: 2017-10-10 18:20:46.605914 7f894af83700 1 ====== req done req=0x7f894af7c140 op status=-5 http_status=200 ====== 2017-10-10 18:20:46.606249 I | rgw: 2017-10-10 18:20:46.606225 7f8924736700 0 ERROR: flush_read_list(): d->client_cb->handle_data() returned -5 I don't see anything else standing out in the log. The object store was configured with an erasure-coded data pool with k=2 and m=1. There are a number of threads around this, but I don't see a resolution. Is there a tracking issue for this? http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2016-February/007756.ht ml https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg16117.html https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-devel/msg37657.html Here's our tracking Rook issue. https://github.com/rook/rook/issues/1067 Thanks, Travis On 10/10/17, 3:05 PM, "ceph-users on behalf of Jack" <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of ceph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Hi, > >I would like some information about the following > >Let say I have a running cluster, with 4 OSDs: 2 SSDs, and 2 HDDs >My single pool has size=3, min_size=2 > >For a write-only pattern, I thought I would get SSDs performance level, >because the write would be acked as soon as min_size OSDs acked > >But I am right ? > >(the same setup could involve some high latency OSDs, in the case of >country-level cluster) >_______________________________________________ >ceph-users mailing list >ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ceph >.com%2Flistinfo.cgi%2Fceph-users-ceph.com&data=02%7C01%7CTravis.Nielsen%40 >quantum.com%7C16f668da252f4e6f355308d5102b09c1%7C322a135f14fb4d72aede12227 >2134ae0%7C1%7C0%7C636432699404298770&sdata=tmIMMyQ7ia%2FVmHrSGcF9t4sMpt2bj >dexriEhEg3XUGU%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |