Re: [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process

[ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Kotresh.

Let me discuss in my team and will let you know.

Regards,

Abhishek

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <khiremat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Abhishek,

As this is an enhancement it won't be back ported to 3.7/3.8/3.10
It would be only available from upcoming 3.11 release.

But I did try applying it to 3.7.6. It has lot of conflicts.
If it's important for you, you can upgrade to latest version.
available and back port it. If it's impossible to upgrade to
latest version, atleast 3.7.20 would do. It has minimal
conflicts. I can help you out with that.

Thanks and Regards,
Kotresh H R

----- Original Message -----
> From: "ABHISHEK PALIWAL" <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar" <khiremat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gluster-users"
> <gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:58:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process
>
> Hi Kotresh,
>
> Could you please update whether it is possible to get the patch or bakport
> this patch on Gluster 3.7.6 version.
>
> Regards,
> Abhishek
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:14 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > What is the way to take this patch on Gluster 3.7.6 or only way to upgrade
> > the version?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:22 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Kotresh,
> >>
> >> I have seen the patch available on the link which you shared. It seems we
> >> don't have some files in gluser 3.7.6 which you modified in the patch.
> >>
> >> Is there any possibility to provide the patch for Gluster 3.7.6?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Abhishek
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
> >> khiremat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Abhishek,
> >>>
> >>> Bitrot requires versioning of files to be down on writes.
> >>> This was being done irrespective of whether bitrot is
> >>> enabled or not. This takes considerable CPU. With the
> >>> fix https://review.gluster.org/#/c/14442/, it is made
> >>> optional and is enabled only with bitrot. If bitrot
> >>> is not enabled, then you won't see any setxattr/getxattrs
> >>> related to bitrot.
> >>>
> >>> The fix would be available in 3.11.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and Regards,
> >>> Kotresh H R
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> > From: "ABHISHEK PALIWAL" <abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> > Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "gluster-users" <
> >>> gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Kotresh Hiremath
> >>> > Ravishankar" <khiremat@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:30:57 AM
> >>> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi Kotresh,
> >>> >
> >>> > Could you please update me on this?
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards,
> >>> > Abhishek
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
> >>> > pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > +Kotresh who seems to have worked on the bug you mentioned.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:21 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <
> >>> > > abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> If the patch provided in that case will resolve my bug as well then
> >>> > >> please provide the patch so that I will backport it on 3.7.6
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <
> >>> > >> abhishpaliwal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>> Hi Team,
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> I have noticed that there are so many glusterfsd threads are
> >>> running in
> >>> > >>> my system and we observed some of those thread consuming more cpu.
> >>> I
> >>> > >>> did “strace” on two such threads (before the problem disappeared by
> >>> > >>> itself)
> >>> > >>> and found that there is a continuous activity like below:
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> lstat("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92f8-4
> >>> > >>> dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_20170
> >>> 126T113552+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> {st_mode=S_IFREG|0670, st_size=1995, ...}) = 0
> >>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
> >>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_2
> >>> 0170126T113552+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.bad-file", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
> >>> data
> >>> > >>> available)
> >>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
> >>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_2
> >>> 0170126T113552+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.signature", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
> >>> data
> >>> > >>> available)
> >>> > >>> lstat("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92f8-4
> >>> > >>> dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170123T
> >>> 180550+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> {st_mode=S_IFREG|0670, st_size=169, ...}) = 0
> >>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
> >>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170

> >>> 123T180550+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.bad-file", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
> >>> data
> >>> > >>> available)
> >>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
> >>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170

> >>> 123T180550+0000.log.gz",
> >>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.signature", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
> >>> data
> >>> > >>> available)
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> I have found the below existing issue which is very similar to my
> >>> > >>> scenario.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298258
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> We are using the gluster-3.7.6 and it seems that the issue is
> >>> fixed in
> >>> > >>> 3.8.4 version.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Could you please let me know why it showing the number of above
> >>> logs and
> >>> > >>> reason behind it as it is not explained in the above bug.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Regards,
> >>> > >>> Abhishek
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> --
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Regards
> >>> > >>> Abhishek Paliwal
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> --
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Regards
> >>> > >> Abhishek Paliwal
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> _______________________________________________
> >>> > >> Gluster-users mailing list
> >>> > >> Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >>> > >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>> > > --
> >>> > > Pranith
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Regards
> >>> > Abhishek Paliwal
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Abhishek Paliwal
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Abhishek Paliwal
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Regards
> Abhishek Paliwal
>

--

Regards
Abhishek Paliwal

_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel