Hi Shyam, we are already doing it. we wait for rebalance status to be complete. We loop. we keep checking if the status is complete for '20' minutes or so.
-ShwethaOn Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Shyam Ranganathan <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/29/2017 09:31 AM, Atin Mukherjee wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Shyam Ranganathan <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Nigel, Shwetha,
The latest Glusto run [a] that was started by Nigel, post fixing the
prior timeout issue, failed (much later though) again.
I took a look at the logs and my analysis is here [b]
@atin, @kaushal, @ppai can you take a look and see if the analysis
is correct?
I took a look at the logs and here is my theory:
glusterd starts the rebalance daemon through runner framework with nowait mode which essentially means that even though glusterd reports back a success back to CLI for rebalance start, one of the node might take some more additional time to start the rebalance process and establish rpc connection. In this case we hit a race where while one of the node was still trying to start the rebalance process a rebalance status command was triggered which eventually failed on the node as rpc connection wasn't successful and originator glusterd's commit op failed with ""Received commit RJT from uuid: 6f9524e6-9f9e-44aa-b2f4-393404adfd9d" failure. Technically to avoid all these spurious time out issues we try to check the status in a loop till a certain timeout. Isn't that the case in glusto? If my analysis is correct, you shouldn't be seeing this failure on the 2nd attempt as its a race.
Thanks Atin.
In this case there is no second check or a timed check (sleep or otherwise (EXPECT_WITHIN like constructs)).
@Shwetha, can we fix up this test and give it another go?
<https://paste.fedoraproject.o
In short glusterd has got an error when checking for rebalance stats
from one of the nodes as:
"Received commit RJT from uuid: 6f9524e6-9f9e-44aa-b2f4-393404adfd9d"
and the rebalance deamon on the node with that UUID is not really
ready to serve requests when this was called, hence I am assuming
this is causing the error. But need a once over by one of you folks.
@Shwetha, can we add a further timeout between rebalance start and
checking the status, just so that we avoid this timing issue on
these nodes.
Thanks,
Shyam
[a] glusto run:
https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/377/
<https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/377/ >
[b] analysis of the failure:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/mk6ynJ0B9AH6H9ncbyru5w
<https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/mk6ynJ0B9AH6H9ncbyru5 >w
On 08/25/2017 04:29 PM, Shyam Ranganathan wrote:
Nigel was kind enough to kick off a glusto run on 3.12 head a
couple of days back. The status can be seen here [1].
The run failed, but managed to get past what Glusto does on
master (see [2]). Not that this is a consolation, but just
stating the fact.
The run [1] failed at,
17:05:57
functional/bvt/test_cvt.py::TestGlusterHealSanity_dispersed_ glusterfs::test_self_heal_ when_io_in_progress
FAILED
The test case failed due to,
17:10:28 E AssertionError: ('Volume %s : All process are
not online', 'testvol_dispersed')
The test case can be seen here [3], and the reason for failure
is that Glusto did not wait long enough for the down brick to
come up (it waited for 10 seconds, but the brick came up after
12 seconds or within the same second as the test for it being
up. The log snippets pointing to this problem are here [4]. In
short there was no real bug or issue that caused the failure as yet.
Glusto as a gating factor for this release was desirable, but
having got this far on 3.12 does help.
@nigel, we could try post increasing the timeout between
bringing the brick up to checking if it is up, and try another
run, let me know if that works, and what is needed from me to
get this going.
Shyam
[1] Glusto 3.12 run:
https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/365/
<https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/365/ >
[2] Glusto on master:
https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/360/ testReport/functional.bvt.test _cvt/
<https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/360/ >testReport/functional.bvt.test _cvt/
[3] Failed test case:
https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/365/ testReport/functional.bvt.test _cvt/TestGlusterHealSanity_dis persed_glusterfs/test_self_hea l_when_io_in_progress/
<https://ci.centos.org/view/Gluster/job/gluster_glusto/365/ >testReport/functional.bvt.test _cvt/TestGlusterHealSanity_dis persed_glusterfs/test_self_hea l_when_io_in_progress/
[4] Log analysis pointing to the failed check:
https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/znTPiFLrc2~vsWuoYRToZA rg/paste/znTPiFLrc2%7EvsWuoYRT >oZA
"Releases are made better together"
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.
Gluster-devel mailing listorg >
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gluster-devel@gluster.
Gluster-devel mailing listorg >
http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
<http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel >
_______________________________________________ Gluster-devel mailing list Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
