Hi, this message is one of those that are often spurious. I don't recall in which thread/PR/tracker I read it, but the story was something like that: If an MDS gets under memory pressure it will request dentry items back from *all* clients, not just the active ones or the ones holding many of them. If you have a client that's below the min-threshold for dentries (its one of the client/mds tuning options), it will not respond. This client will be flagged as not responding, which is a false positive. I believe the devs are working on a fix to get rid of these spurious warnings. There is a "bug/feature" in the MDS that does not clear this warning flag for inactive clients. Hence, the message hangs and never disappears. I usually clear it with a "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" on the client. However, except for being annoying in the dashboard, it has no performance or otherwise negative impact. Best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 10:05 AM To: Özkan Göksu Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxx Subject: Re: 1 clients failing to respond to cache pressure (quincy:17.2.6) Performance for small files is more about IOPS rather than throughput, and the IOPS in your fio tests look okay to me. What you could try is to split the PGs to get around 150 or 200 PGs per OSD. You're currently at around 60 according to the ceph osd df output. Before you do that, can you share 'ceph pg ls-by-pool cephfs.ud-data.data | head'? I don't need the whole output, just to see how many objects each PG has. We had a case once where that helped, but it was an older cluster and the pool was backed by HDDs and separate rocksDB on SSDs. So this might not be the solution here, but it could improve things as well. Zitat von Özkan Göksu <ozkangksu@xxxxxxxxx>: > Every user has a 1x subvolume and I only have 1 pool. > At the beginning we were using each subvolume for ldap home directory + > user data. > When a user logins any docker on any host, it was using the cluster for > home and the for user related data, we was have second directory in the > same subvolume. > Time to time users were feeling a very slow home environment and after a > month it became almost impossible to use home. VNC sessions became > unresponsive and slow etc. > > 2 weeks ago, I had to migrate home to a ZFS storage and now the overall > performance is better for only user_data without home. > But still the performance is not good enough as I expected because of the > problems related to MDS. > The usage is low but allocation is high and Cpu usage is high. You saw the > IO Op/s, it's nothing but allocation is high. > > I develop a fio benchmark script and I run the script on 4x test server at > the same time, the results are below: > Script: > https://github.com/ozkangoksu/benchmark/blob/8f5df87997864c25ef32447e02fcd41fda0d2a67/iobench.sh > > https://github.com/ozkangoksu/benchmark/blob/main/benchmark-results/iobench-client-01.txt > https://github.com/ozkangoksu/benchmark/blob/main/benchmark-results/iobench-client-02.txt > https://github.com/ozkangoksu/benchmark/blob/main/benchmark-results/iobench-client-03.txt > https://github.com/ozkangoksu/benchmark/blob/main/benchmark-results/iobench-client-04.txt > > While running benchmark, I take sample values for each type of iobench run. > > Seq Write benchmarking: size=1G,direct=1,numjobs=3,iodepth=32 > client: 70 MiB/s rd, 762 MiB/s wr, 337 op/s rd, 24.41k op/s wr > client: 60 MiB/s rd, 551 MiB/s wr, 303 op/s rd, 35.12k op/s wr > client: 13 MiB/s rd, 161 MiB/s wr, 101 op/s rd, 41.30k op/s wr > > Seq Read benchmarking: size=1G,direct=1,numjobs=3,iodepth=32 > client: 1.6 GiB/s rd, 219 KiB/s wr, 28.76k op/s rd, 89 op/s wr > client: 370 MiB/s rd, 475 KiB/s wr, 90.38k op/s rd, 89 op/s wr > > Rand Write benchmarking: size=1G,direct=1,numjobs=3,iodepth=32 > client: 63 MiB/s rd, 1.5 GiB/s wr, 8.77k op/s rd, 5.50k op/s wr > client: 14 MiB/s rd, 1.8 GiB/s wr, 81 op/s rd, 13.86k op/s wr > client: 6.6 MiB/s rd, 1.2 GiB/s wr, 61 op/s rd, 30.13k op/s wr > > Rand Read benchmarking: size=1G,direct=1,numjobs=3,iodepth=32 > client: 317 MiB/s rd, 841 MiB/s wr, 426 op/s rd, 10.98k op/s wr > client: 2.8 GiB/s rd, 882 MiB/s wr, 25.68k op/s rd, 291 op/s wr > client: 4.0 GiB/s rd, 226 MiB/s wr, 89.63k op/s rd, 124 op/s wr > client: 2.4 GiB/s rd, 295 KiB/s wr, 197.86k op/s rd, 20 op/s wr > > It seems I only have problems with the 4K,8K,16K other sector sizes. > > > > > Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx>, 25 Oca 2024 Per, 19:06 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > >> I understand that your MDS shows a high CPU usage, but other than that >> what is your performance issue? Do users complain? Do some operations >> take longer than expected? Are OSDs saturated during those phases? >> Because the cache pressure messages don’t necessarily mean that users >> will notice. >> MDS daemons are single-threaded so that might be a bottleneck. In that >> case multi-active mds might help, which you already tried and >> experienced OOM killers. But you might have to disable the mds >> balancer as someone else mentioned. And then you could think about >> pinning, is it possible to split the CephFS into multiple >> subdirectories and pin them to different ranks? >> But first I’d still like to know what the performance issue really is. >> >> Zitat von Özkan Göksu <ozkangksu@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> > I will try my best to explain my situation. >> > >> > I don't have a separate mds server. I have 5 identical nodes, 3 of them >> > mons, and I use the other 2 as active and standby mds. (currently I have >> > left overs from max_mds 4) >> > >> > root@ud-01:~# ceph -s >> > cluster: >> > id: e42fd4b0-313b-11ee-9a00-31da71873773 >> > health: HEALTH_WARN >> > 1 clients failing to respond to cache pressure >> > >> > services: >> > mon: 3 daemons, quorum ud-01,ud-02,ud-03 (age 9d) >> > mgr: ud-01.qycnol(active, since 8d), standbys: ud-02.tfhqfd >> > mds: 1/1 daemons up, 4 standby >> > osd: 80 osds: 80 up (since 9d), 80 in (since 5M) >> > >> > data: >> > volumes: 1/1 healthy >> > pools: 3 pools, 2305 pgs >> > objects: 106.58M objects, 25 TiB >> > usage: 45 TiB used, 101 TiB / 146 TiB avail >> > pgs: 2303 active+clean >> > 2 active+clean+scrubbing+deep >> > >> > io: >> > client: 16 MiB/s rd, 3.4 MiB/s wr, 77 op/s rd, 23 op/s wr >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > root@ud-01:~# ceph fs status >> > ud-data - 84 clients >> > ======= >> > RANK STATE MDS ACTIVITY DNS INOS DIRS >> > CAPS >> > 0 active ud-data.ud-02.xcoojt Reqs: 40 /s 2579k 2578k 169k >> > 3048k >> > POOL TYPE USED AVAIL >> > cephfs.ud-data.meta metadata 136G 44.9T >> > cephfs.ud-data.data data 44.3T 44.9T >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > root@ud-01:~# ceph health detail >> > HEALTH_WARN 1 clients failing to respond to cache pressure >> > [WRN] MDS_CLIENT_RECALL: 1 clients failing to respond to cache pressure >> > mds.ud-data.ud-02.xcoojt(mds.0): Client bmw-m4 failing to respond to >> > cache pressure client_id: 1275577 >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > When I check the failing client with session ls I see only "num_caps: >> 12298" >> > >> > ceph tell mds.ud-data.ud-02.xcoojt session ls | jq -r '.[] | "clientid: >> > \(.id)= num_caps: \(.num_caps), num_leases: \(.num_leases), >> > request_load_avg: \(.request_load_avg), num_completed_requests: >> > \(.num_completed_requests), num_completed_flushes: >> > \(.num_completed_flushes)"' | sort -n -t: -k3 >> > >> > clientid: 1275577= num_caps: 12298, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 0, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1294542= num_caps: 13000, num_leases: 12, request_load_avg: >> 105, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 6 >> > clientid: 1282187= num_caps: 16869, num_leases: 1, request_load_avg: 0, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1275589= num_caps: 18943, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 52, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1282154= num_caps: 24747, num_leases: 1, request_load_avg: 57, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 2 >> > clientid: 1275553= num_caps: 25120, num_leases: 2, request_load_avg: 116, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 8 >> > clientid: 1282142= num_caps: 27185, num_leases: 6, request_load_avg: 128, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 8 >> > clientid: 1275535= num_caps: 40364, num_leases: 6, request_load_avg: 111, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 8 >> > clientid: 1282130= num_caps: 41483, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 135, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1275547= num_caps: 42953, num_leases: 4, request_load_avg: 119, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 6 >> > clientid: 1282139= num_caps: 45435, num_leases: 27, request_load_avg: 84, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 34 >> > clientid: 1282136= num_caps: 48374, num_leases: 8, request_load_avg: 0, >> > num_completed_requests: 1, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1275532= num_caps: 48664, num_leases: 7, request_load_avg: 115, >> > num_completed_requests: 2, num_completed_flushes: 8 >> > clientid: 1191789= num_caps: 130319, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: >> 1753, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 0 >> > clientid: 1275571= num_caps: 139488, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 2, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1282133= num_caps: 145487, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 8, >> > num_completed_requests: 1, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > clientid: 1534496= num_caps: 1041316, num_leases: 0, request_load_avg: 0, >> > num_completed_requests: 0, num_completed_flushes: 1 >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > When I check the dashboard/service/mds I see %120+ CPU usage on active >> MDS >> > but on the host everything is almost idle and disk waits are very low. >> > >> > avg-cpu: %user %nice %system %iowait %steal %idle >> > 0.61 0.00 0.38 0.41 0.00 98.60 >> > >> > Device r/s rMB/s rrqm/s %rrqm r_await rareq-sz w/s >> > wMB/s wrqm/s %wrqm w_await wareq-sz d/s dMB/s drqm/s >> %drqm >> > d_await dareq-sz f/s f_await aqu-sz %util >> > sdc 2.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.50 6.00 20.00 >> > 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.60 0.02 1.20 >> > sdd 3.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.67 8.00 285.00 >> > 1.84 77.00 21.27 0.44 6.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 114.00 0.83 0.22 22.40 >> > sde 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 36.00 >> > 0.08 3.00 7.69 0.64 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.67 0.04 1.60 >> > sdf 5.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.40 7.20 40.00 >> > 0.09 3.00 6.98 0.53 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.70 0.04 2.00 >> > sdg 11.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.73 7.27 36.00 >> > 0.09 4.00 10.00 0.50 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.72 0.04 3.20 >> > sdh 5.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.60 5.60 46.00 >> > 0.10 2.00 4.17 0.59 2.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 23.00 0.83 0.05 2.80 >> > sdi 7.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.43 6.29 36.00 >> > 0.07 1.00 2.70 0.47 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.61 0.03 2.40 >> > sdj 5.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.80 7.20 42.00 >> > 0.09 1.00 2.33 0.67 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 >> 0.00 >> > 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.81 0.05 3.20 >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > Other than this 5x node cluster, I also have a 3x node cluster with >> > identical hardware but it serves for a different purpose and data >> workload. >> > In this cluster I don't have any problem and MDS default settings seems >> > enough. >> > The only difference between two cluster is, 5x node cluster used directly >> > by users, 3x node cluster used heavily to read and write data via >> projects >> > not by users. So allocate and de-allocate will be better. >> > >> > I guess I just have a problematic use case on the 5x node cluster and as >> I >> > mentioned above, I might have the similar problem but I don't know how to >> > debug it. >> > >> > >> https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@xxxxxxx/thread/YO4SGL4DJQ6EKUBUIHKTFSW72ZJ3XLZS/ >> > quote:"A user running VSCodium, keeping 15k caps open.. the opportunistic >> > caps recall eventually starts recalling those but the (el7 kernel) client >> > won't release them. Stopping Codium seems to be the only way to release." >> > >> > ------------------------------ >> > Before reading the osd df you should know that I created 2x >> > OSD/per"CT4000MX500SSD1" >> > # ceph osd df tree >> > ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE RAW USE DATA OMAP >> META >> > AVAIL %USE VAR PGS STATUS TYPE NAME >> > -1 145.54321 - 146 TiB 45 TiB 44 TiB 119 GiB 333 >> > GiB 101 TiB 30.81 1.00 - root default >> > -3 29.10864 - 29 TiB 8.9 TiB 8.8 TiB 25 GiB 66 >> > GiB 20 TiB 30.54 0.99 - host ud-01 >> > 0 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 616 GiB 610 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.04 1.07 61 up osd.0 >> > 1 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 521 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.28 0.92 53 up osd.1 >> > 2 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 595 GiB 589 GiB 2.3 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.96 1.04 63 up osd.2 >> > 3 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 521 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.30 0.92 55 up osd.3 >> > 4 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 525 GiB 520 GiB 1.3 GiB 3.9 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.21 0.92 52 up osd.4 >> > 5 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 592 GiB 586 GiB 1.8 GiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.76 1.03 61 up osd.5 >> > 6 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 559 GiB 553 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.03 0.97 57 up osd.6 >> > 7 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 602 GiB 597 GiB 836 MiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.32 1.05 58 up osd.7 >> > 8 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 614 GiB 609 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.98 1.07 60 up osd.8 >> > 9 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 571 GiB 565 GiB 2.2 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.67 1.00 61 up osd.9 >> > 10 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 528 GiB 522 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.33 0.92 52 up osd.10 >> > 11 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 551 GiB 546 GiB 1.5 GiB 3.6 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.57 0.96 56 up osd.11 >> > 12 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 594 GiB 588 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.91 1.04 61 up osd.12 >> > 13 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 561 GiB 555 GiB 1.1 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.10 0.98 55 up osd.13 >> > 14 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 616 GiB 609 GiB 1.9 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.04 1.07 64 up osd.14 >> > 15 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 525 GiB 520 GiB 1.1 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.20 0.92 51 up osd.15 >> > -5 29.10864 - 29 TiB 9.0 TiB 8.9 TiB 22 GiB 67 >> > GiB 20 TiB 30.89 1.00 - host ud-02 >> > 16 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 617 GiB 611 GiB 1.7 GiB 4.7 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.12 1.08 63 up osd.16 >> > 17 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 582 GiB 577 GiB 1.6 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 31.26 1.01 59 up osd.17 >> > 18 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 583 GiB 578 GiB 418 MiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 31.29 1.02 54 up osd.18 >> > 19 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 550 GiB 544 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.50 0.96 56 up osd.19 >> > 20 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 551 GiB 546 GiB 1.1 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.57 0.96 54 up osd.20 >> > 21 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 616 GiB 610 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.04 1.07 60 up osd.21 >> > 22 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 573 GiB 567 GiB 1.6 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.75 1.00 58 up osd.22 >> > 23 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 616 GiB 610 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.06 1.07 60 up osd.23 >> > 24 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 539 GiB 534 GiB 844 MiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.92 0.94 51 up osd.24 >> > 25 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 583 GiB 576 GiB 2.1 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 31.27 1.02 61 up osd.25 >> > 26 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 617 GiB 611 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.6 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.12 1.08 61 up osd.26 >> > 27 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 537 GiB 532 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.84 0.94 53 up osd.27 >> > 28 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 522 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.29 0.92 53 up osd.28 >> > 29 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 594 GiB 588 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.6 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.91 1.04 59 up osd.29 >> > 30 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 528 GiB 523 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.35 0.92 53 up osd.30 >> > 31 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 594 GiB 589 GiB 1.6 GiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.89 1.03 61 up osd.31 >> > -7 29.10864 - 29 TiB 8.9 TiB 8.8 TiB 23 GiB 67 >> > GiB 20 TiB 30.66 1.00 - host ud-03 >> > 32 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 593 GiB 588 GiB 1.1 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.84 1.03 57 up osd.32 >> > 33 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 617 GiB 611 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.13 1.08 63 up osd.33 >> > 34 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 537 GiB 532 GiB 2.0 GiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.84 0.94 59 up osd.34 >> > 35 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 562 GiB 556 GiB 1.7 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.16 0.98 58 up osd.35 >> > 36 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 529 GiB 523 GiB 1.3 GiB 3.9 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.38 0.92 52 up osd.36 >> > 37 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 521 GiB 1.7 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.28 0.92 55 up osd.37 >> > 38 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 574 GiB 568 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.79 1.00 55 up osd.38 >> > 39 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 605 GiB 599 GiB 1.6 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.48 1.05 61 up osd.39 >> > 40 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 573 GiB 567 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.76 1.00 56 up osd.40 >> > 41 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 526 GiB 520 GiB 1.7 GiB 3.9 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.21 0.92 54 up osd.41 >> > 42 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 613 GiB 608 GiB 1010 MiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.91 1.07 58 up osd.42 >> > 43 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 606 GiB 600 GiB 1.7 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.51 1.06 61 up osd.43 >> > 44 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 583 GiB 577 GiB 1.6 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 31.29 1.02 60 up osd.44 >> > 45 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 618 GiB 613 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.18 1.08 62 up osd.45 >> > 46 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 550 GiB 544 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.50 0.96 54 up osd.46 >> > 47 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 526 GiB 522 GiB 692 MiB 3.7 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.25 0.92 50 up osd.47 >> > -9 29.10864 - 29 TiB 9.0 TiB 8.9 TiB 26 GiB 68 >> > GiB 20 TiB 31.04 1.01 - host ud-04 >> > 48 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 540 GiB 534 GiB 2.2 GiB 3.6 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.96 0.94 58 up osd.48 >> > 49 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 617 GiB 611 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.11 1.07 61 up osd.49 >> > 50 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 618 GiB 612 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.8 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.17 1.08 61 up osd.50 >> > 51 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 618 GiB 612 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.19 1.08 61 up osd.51 >> > 52 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 526 GiB 521 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.25 0.92 53 up osd.52 >> > 53 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 618 GiB 611 GiB 2.4 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.17 1.08 66 up osd.53 >> > 54 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 550 GiB 544 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.54 0.96 55 up osd.54 >> > 55 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 522 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.29 0.92 52 up osd.55 >> > 56 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 525 GiB 519 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.16 0.91 52 up osd.56 >> > 57 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 615 GiB 609 GiB 2.3 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.03 1.07 65 up osd.57 >> > 58 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 522 GiB 1.6 GiB 3.7 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.31 0.92 55 up osd.58 >> > 59 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 615 GiB 609 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.6 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.01 1.07 60 up osd.59 >> > 60 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 594 GiB 588 GiB 1.2 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.88 1.03 59 up osd.60 >> > 61 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 616 GiB 610 GiB 1.9 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.04 1.07 64 up osd.61 >> > 62 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 620 GiB 614 GiB 1.9 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 33.27 1.08 63 up osd.62 >> > 63 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 527 GiB 522 GiB 1.5 GiB 4.0 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.30 0.92 53 up osd.63 >> > -11 29.10864 - 29 TiB 9.0 TiB 8.9 TiB 23 GiB 65 >> > GiB 20 TiB 30.91 1.00 - host ud-05 >> > 64 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 608 GiB 601 GiB 2.3 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.62 1.06 65 up osd.64 >> > 65 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 606 GiB 601 GiB 628 MiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.53 1.06 57 up osd.65 >> > 66 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 583 GiB 578 GiB 1.3 GiB 4.3 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 31.31 1.02 57 up osd.66 >> > 67 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 537 GiB 533 GiB 436 MiB 3.6 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.82 0.94 50 up osd.67 >> > 68 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 541 GiB 535 GiB 2.5 GiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 29.04 0.94 59 up osd.68 >> > 69 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 606 GiB 601 GiB 1.1 GiB 4.4 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.55 1.06 59 up osd.69 >> > 70 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 604 GiB 598 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.44 1.05 63 up osd.70 >> > 71 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 606 GiB 600 GiB 1.9 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.53 1.06 62 up osd.71 >> > 72 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 602 GiB 598 GiB 612 MiB 4.1 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.33 1.05 57 up osd.72 >> > 73 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 571 GiB 565 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 30.65 0.99 58 up osd.73 >> > 74 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 608 GiB 602 GiB 1.8 GiB 4.2 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.62 1.06 61 up osd.74 >> > 75 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 536 GiB 531 GiB 1.9 GiB 3.5 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.80 0.93 57 up osd.75 >> > 76 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 605 GiB 599 GiB 1.4 GiB 4.5 >> > GiB 1.2 TiB 32.48 1.05 60 up osd.76 >> > 77 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 537 GiB 532 GiB 1.2 GiB 3.9 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.84 0.94 52 up osd.77 >> > 78 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 525 GiB 520 GiB 1.3 GiB 3.8 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.20 0.92 52 up osd.78 >> > 79 ssd 1.81929 1.00000 1.8 TiB 536 GiB 531 GiB 1.1 GiB 3.3 >> > GiB 1.3 TiB 28.76 0.93 53 up osd.79 >> > TOTAL 146 TiB 45 TiB 44 TiB 119 GiB 333 >> > GiB 101 TiB 30.81 >> > MIN/MAX VAR: 0.91/1.08 STDDEV: 1.90 >> > >> > >> > >> > Eugen Block <eblock@xxxxxx>, 25 Oca 2024 Per, 16:52 tarihinde şunu >> yazdı: >> > >> >> There is no definitive answer wrt mds tuning. As it is everywhere >> >> mentioned, it's about finding the right setup for your specific >> >> workload. If you can synthesize your workload (maybe scale down a bit) >> >> try optimizing it in a test cluster without interrupting your >> >> developers too much. >> >> But what you haven't explained yet is what are you experiencing as a >> >> performance issue? Do you have numbers or a detailed description? >> >> From the fs status output you didn't seem to have too much activity >> >> going on (around 140 requests per second), but that's probably not the >> >> usual traffic? What does ceph report in its client IO output? >> >> Can you paste the 'ceph osd df' output as well? >> >> Do you have dedicated MDS servers or are they colocated with other >> >> services? >> >> >> >> Zitat von Özkan Göksu <ozkangksu@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> >> > Hello Eugen. >> >> > >> >> > I read all of your MDS related topics and thank you so much for your >> >> effort >> >> > on this. >> >> > There is not much information and I couldn't find a MDS tuning guide >> at >> >> > all. It seems that you are the correct person to discuss mds >> debugging >> >> and >> >> > tuning. >> >> > >> >> > Do you have any documents or may I learn what is the proper way to >> debug >> >> > MDS and clients ? >> >> > Which debug logs will guide me to understand the limitations and will >> >> help >> >> > to tune according to the data flow? >> >> > >> >> > While searching, I find this: >> >> > >> >> >> https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@xxxxxxx/thread/YO4SGL4DJQ6EKUBUIHKTFSW72ZJ3XLZS/ >> >> > quote:"A user running VSCodium, keeping 15k caps open.. the >> opportunistic >> >> > caps recall eventually starts recalling those but the (el7 kernel) >> client >> >> > won't release them. Stopping Codium seems to be the only way to >> release." >> >> > >> >> > Because of this I think I also need to play around with the client >> side >> >> too. >> >> > >> >> > My main goal is increasing the speed and reducing the latency and I >> >> wonder >> >> > if these ideas are correct or not: >> >> > - Maybe I need to increase client side cache size because via each >> >> client, >> >> > multiple users request a lot of objects and clearly the >> >> > client_cache_size=16 default is not enough. >> >> > - Maybe I need to increase client side maximum cache limit for >> >> > object "client_oc_max_objects=1000 to 10000" and data >> >> "client_oc_size=200mi >> >> > to 400mi" >> >> > - The client cache cleaning threshold is not aggressive enough to keep >> >> the >> >> > free cache size in the desired range. I need to make it aggressive but >> >> this >> >> > should not reduce speed and increase latency. >> >> > >> >> > mds_cache_memory_limit=4gi to 16gi >> >> > client_oc_max_objects=1000 to 10000 >> >> > client_oc_size=200mi to 400mi >> >> > client_permissions=false #to reduce latency. >> >> > client_cache_size=16 to 128 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > What do you think? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |