| Thanks Andrew.
What I'm really hoping for is anything I can do to make this gfs_grow go faster. It's been running for 19 hours now, I have no idea when it'll complete, and the file system I'm trying to grow has been all but unusable for the duration. This is a very busy file system, and I know it's best to run gfs_grow on a quiet file system, but there isn't too much I can do about that. Alternatively, if anyone knows of a signal I could send to gfs_grow that would cause it to give a status report or increase verbosity, that would be helpful, too. I have tried both increasing and decreasing the number of NFS threads, but since I can't tell where I am in the process or how quickly it's going, I have no idea what effect this has on operations.
Thanks,
James On Oct 8, 2008, at 5:12 PM, Andrew A. Neuschwander wrote: James, I have a CentOS 5.2 cluster where I would see the same nfs errors under certain conditions. If I did anything that introduced latency to my gfs operations on the node that served nfs, the nfs threads couldn't service requests faster than they came in from clients. Eventually my nfs threads would all be busy and start dropping nfs requests. I kept an eye on my nfsd thread utilization (/proc/net/rpc/nfsd) and kept bumping up the number of threads until they could handle all the requests while the gfs had a higher latency. In my case, I had EMC Networker streaming data from my gfs filesystems to a local scsi tape device on the same node that served nfs. I eventually separated them onto different nodes. I'm sure gfs_grow would slow down your gfs enough that your nfs threads couldn't keep up. NFS on gfs seems to be very latency sensitive. I have a quick an dirty perl script to generate a historgram image from nfs thread stats if you are interested. -Andrew -- Andrew A. Neuschwander, RHCE Linux Systems/Software Engineer College of Forestry and Conservation The University of Montana http://www.ntsg.umt.eduandrew@xxxxxxxxxxxx - 406.243.6310 James Chamberlain wrote: Hi all,
I'd like to thank Bob Peterson for helping me solve the last problem I was seeing with my storage cluster. I've got a new one now. A couple days ago, site ops plugged in a new storage shelf and this triggered some sort of error in the storage chassis. I was able to sort that out with gfs_fsck, and have since gotten the new storage recognized by the cluster. I'd like to make use of this new storage, and it's here that we run into trouble.
lvextend completed with no trouble, so I ran gfs_grow. gfs_grow has been running for over an hour now and has not progressed past:
[root@s12n01 ~]# gfs_grow /dev/s12/scratch13
FS: Mount Point: /scratch13
FS: Device: /dev/s12/scratch13
FS: Options: rw,noatime,nodiratime
FS: Size: 4392290302
DEV: Size: 5466032128
Preparing to write new FS information...
The load average on this node has risen from its normal ~30-40 to 513 (the number of nfsd threads, plus one), and the file system has become slow-to-inaccessible on client nodes. I am seeing messages in my log files that indicate things like:
Oct 8 16:26:00 s12n01 kernel: rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: got error -104 when sending 140 bytes - shutting down socket
Oct 8 16:26:00 s12n01 last message repeated 4 times
Oct 8 16:26:00 s12n01 kernel: nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!
Oct 8 16:26:58 s12n01 kernel: nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 last message repeated 2 times
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: got error -104 when sending 140 bytes - shutting down socket
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: got error -104 when sending 140 bytes - shutting down socket
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: got error -104 when sending 140 bytes - shutting down socket
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: got error -104 when sending 140 bytes - shutting down socket
Oct 8 16:27:56 s12n01 kernel: nfsd: peername failed (err 107)!
Oct 8 16:28:34 s12n01 last message repeated 2 times
Oct 8 16:30:29 s12n01 last message repeated 2 times
I was seeing similar messages this morning, but those went away when I mounted this file system on another node in the cluster, turned on statfs_fast, and then moved the service to that node. I'm not sure what to do about it given that gfs_grow is running. Is this something anyone else has seen? Does anyone know what to do about this? Do I have any option other than to wait until gfs_grow is done? Given my recent experiences (see "lm_dlm_cancel" in the list archives), I'm very hesitant to hit ^C on this gfs_grow. I'm running CentOS 4 for x86-64, kernel 2.6.9-67.0.20.ELsmp.
Thanks,
James
--
Linux-cluster mailing list
Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
-- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxxhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
|
