Good morning :-) gluster11: ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ total 0 ---------- 1 root root 0 Aug 14 06:14 xattrop-006b65d8-9e81-4886-b380-89168ea079bd gluster12: ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ total 0 ---------- 1 root root 0 Jul 17 11:24 xattrop-c7c6f765-ce17-4361-95fb-2fd7f31c7b82 gluster13: ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ total 0 ---------- 1 root root 0 Aug 16 07:54 xattrop-16b696a0-4214-4999-b277-0917c76c983e And here's the output of 'perf ...' which ran almost a minute - file grew pretty fast to a size of 17 GB and system load went up heavily. Had to wait a while until load dropped :-) fyi - load at the moment: load gluster11: ~90 load gluster12: ~10 load gluster13: ~50 perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p 7897 -o /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out [ perf record: Woken up 9837 times to write data ] Warning: Processed 2137218 events and lost 33446 chunks! Check IO/CPU overload! [ perf record: Captured and wrote 16576.374 MB /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out (2047760 samples) ] Here's an excerpt. + 1.93% 0.00% glusteriotwr0 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.89% 0.00% glusteriotwr28 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.86% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.85% 0.00% glusteriotwr63 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.83% 0.01% glusteriotwr0 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.82% 0.00% glusteriotwr38 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.82% 0.01% glusteriotwr28 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.82% 0.00% glusteriotwr0 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr28 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr36 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.80% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.78% 0.01% glusteriotwr63 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.77% 0.00% glusteriotwr63 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.75% 0.01% glusteriotwr38 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.75% 0.00% glusteriotwr38 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.74% 0.00% glusteriotwr17 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.74% 0.00% glusteriotwr44 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.73% 0.00% glusteriotwr6 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.73% 0.00% glusteriotwr37 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.73% 0.01% glusteriotwr36 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs + 1.72% 0.00% glusteriotwr34 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.72% 0.00% glusteriotwr36 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_syscall_64 + 1.71% 0.00% glusteriotwr45 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.70% 0.00% glusteriotwr7 [unknown] [k] 0xffffffffffffffff + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sys_getdents + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] filldir + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 libc-2.24.so [.] 0xffff80c60db8ef2b + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 libc-2.24.so [.] readdir64 + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 index.so [.] 0xffff80c6192a1888 + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] iterate_dir + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ext4_htree_fill_tree + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ext4_readdir Or do you want to download the file /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out and examine it yourself? If so i could send you a link. 2018-08-21 7:13 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM Pranith Kumar Karampuri > <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Regarding hardware the machines are identical. Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 >>> Hexa-Core; 64 GB DDR4 ECC; Dell PERC H330 8 Port SAS/SATA 12 GBit/s >>> RAID Controller; operating system running on a raid1, then 4 disks >>> (JBOD) as bricks. >>> >>> Ok, i ran perf for a few seconds. >>> >>> ------------------------ >>> perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p 7897 -o >>> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out >>> ^C[ perf record: Woken up 378 times to write data ] >>> Warning: >>> Processed 83690 events and lost 96 chunks! >>> >>> Check IO/CPU overload! >>> >>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 423.087 MB >>> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out (51744 samples) ] >>> ------------------------ >>> >>> I copied a couple of lines: >>> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [unknown] [k] >>> 0xffffffffffffffff >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> iterate_dir >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> sys_getdents >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] filldir >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> do_syscall_64 >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 libc-2.24.so [.] >>> 0xffff80c60db8ef2b >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 libc-2.24.so [.] >>> readdir64 >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 index.so [.] >>> 0xffff80c6192a1888 >>> + 8.10% 0.04% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> ext4_htree_fill_tree >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> ext4_readdir >>> + 7.95% 0.12% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> htree_dirblock_to_tree >>> + 5.78% 0.96% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> __ext4_read_dirblock >>> + 4.80% 0.02% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> ext4_bread >>> + 4.78% 0.04% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> ext4_getblk >>> + 4.72% 0.02% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> __getblk_gfp >>> + 4.57% 0.00% glusteriotwr3 [unknown] [k] >>> 0xffffffffffffffff >>> + 4.55% 0.00% glusteriotwr3 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] >>> do_syscall_64 >>> >>> Do you need different or additional information? >> >> >> This looks like there are lot of readdirs going on which is different from >> what we observed earlier, how many seconds did you do perf record for? Will >> it be possible for you to do this for some more time? may be a minute? Just >> want to be sure that the data actually represents what we are observing. > > > I found one code path which on lookup does readdirs. Could you give me the > output of ls -l <brick-path>/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop on all the three > bricks? It can probably give a correlation to see if it is indeed the same > issue or not. > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2018-08-20 11:20 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> > Even the brick which doesn't have high CPU seems to have same number of >>> > lookups, so that's not it. >>> > Is there any difference at all between the machines which have high CPU >>> > vs >>> > low CPU? >>> > I think the only other thing I would do is to install perf tools and >>> > try to >>> > figure out the call-graph which is leading to so much CPU >>> > >>> > This affects performance of the brick I think, so you may have to do it >>> > quickly and for less time. >>> > >>> > perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p <brick-pid> -o </path/to/output> >>> > then >>> > perf report -i </path/to/output/given/in/the/previous/command> >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:40 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> gluster volume heal shared info | grep -i number >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> Number of entries: 0 >>> >> >>> >> Looks good to me. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2018-08-20 10:51 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> >> <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> > There are a lot of Lookup operations in the system. But I am not >>> >> > able to >>> >> > find why. Could you check the output of >>> >> > >>> >> > # gluster volume heal <volname> info | grep -i number >>> >> > >>> >> > it should print all zeros. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:49 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I don't know what you exactly mean with workload, but the main >>> >> >> function of the volume is storing (incl. writing, reading) images >>> >> >> (from hundreds of bytes up to 30 MBs, overall ~7TB). The work is >>> >> >> done >>> >> >> by apache tomcat servers writing to / reading from the volume. >>> >> >> Besides >>> >> >> images there are some text files and binaries that are stored on >>> >> >> the >>> >> >> volume and get updated regularly (every x hours); we'll try to >>> >> >> migrate >>> >> >> the latter ones to local storage asap. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Interestingly it's only one process (and its threads) of the same >>> >> >> brick on 2 of the gluster servers that consumes the CPU. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> gluster11: bricksdd1; not healed; full CPU >>> >> >> gluster12: bricksdd1; got healed; normal CPU >>> >> >> gluster13: bricksdd1; got healed; full CPU >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Besides: performance during heal (e.g. gluster12, bricksdd1) was >>> >> >> way >>> >> >> better than it is now. I've attached 2 pngs showing the differing >>> >> >> cpu >>> >> >> usage of last week before/after heal. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2018-08-17 9:30 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> >> >> <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> > There seems to be too many lookup operations compared to any >>> >> >> > other >>> >> >> > operations. What is the workload on the volume? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:47 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> i hope i did get it right. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared start >>> >> >> >> wait 10 minutes >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared info >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared stop >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> If that's ok, i've attached the output of the info command. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> 2018-08-17 8:31 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> >> >> >> <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> >> > Please do volume profile also for around 10 minutes when CPU% >>> >> >> >> > is >>> >> >> >> > high. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:56 AM Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> >> >> >> > <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> As per the output, all io-threads are using a lot of CPU. It >>> >> >> >> >> is >>> >> >> >> >> better >>> >> >> >> >> to >>> >> >> >> >> check what the volume profile is to see what is leading to so >>> >> >> >> >> much >>> >> >> >> >> work >>> >> >> >> >> for >>> >> >> >> >> io-threads. Please follow the documentation at >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Monitoring%20Workload/ >>> >> >> >> >> section: " >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Running GlusterFS Volume Profile Command" >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> and attach output of "gluster volume profile info", >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:24 AM Hu Bert >>> >> >> >> >> <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> Good morning, >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> i ran the command during 100% CPU usage and attached the >>> >> >> >> >>> file. >>> >> >> >> >>> Hopefully it helps. >>> >> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> 2018-08-17 7:33 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri >>> >> >> >> >>> <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> >> >>> > Could you do the following on one of the nodes where you >>> >> >> >> >>> > are >>> >> >> >> >>> > observing >>> >> >> >> >>> > high >>> >> >> >> >>> > CPU usage and attach that file to this thread? We can find >>> >> >> >> >>> > what >>> >> >> >> >>> > threads/processes are leading to high usage. Do this for >>> >> >> >> >>> > say >>> >> >> >> >>> > 10 >>> >> >> >> >>> > minutes >>> >> >> >> >>> > when >>> >> >> >> >>> > you see the ~100% CPU. >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > top -bHd 5 > /tmp/top.${HOSTNAME}.txt >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:37 PM Hu Bert >>> >> >> >> >>> > <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Hello again :-) >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> The self heal must have finished as there are no log >>> >> >> >> >>> >> entries >>> >> >> >> >>> >> in >>> >> >> >> >>> >> glustershd.log files anymore. According to munin disk >>> >> >> >> >>> >> latency >>> >> >> >> >>> >> (average >>> >> >> >> >>> >> io wait) has gone down to 100 ms, and disk utilization >>> >> >> >> >>> >> has >>> >> >> >> >>> >> gone >>> >> >> >> >>> >> down >>> >> >> >> >>> >> to ~60% - both on all servers and hard disks. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> But now system load on 2 servers (which were in the good >>> >> >> >> >>> >> state) >>> >> >> >> >>> >> fluctuates between 60 and 100; the server with the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> formerly >>> >> >> >> >>> >> failed >>> >> >> >> >>> >> disk has a load of 20-30.I've uploaded some munin >>> >> >> >> >>> >> graphics of >>> >> >> >> >>> >> the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> cpu >>> >> >> >> >>> >> usage: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster11_cpu31d3a.png >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster12_cpu8sem7.png >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster13_cpud7eni.png >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> This can't be normal. 2 of the servers under heavy load >>> >> >> >> >>> >> and >>> >> >> >> >>> >> one >>> >> >> >> >>> >> not >>> >> >> >> >>> >> that much. Does anyone have an explanation of this >>> >> >> >> >>> >> strange >>> >> >> >> >>> >> behaviour? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Thx :-) >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> 2018-08-14 9:37 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert >>> >> >> >> >>> >> <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Hi there, >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > well, it seems the heal has finally finished. Couldn't >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > see/find >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > any >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > related log message; is there such a message in a >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > specific >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > log >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > file? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > But i see the same behaviour when the last heal >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > finished: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > all >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > CPU >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > cores are consumed by brick processes; not only by the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > formerly >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > failed >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bricksdd1, but by all 4 brick processes (and their >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > threads). >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Load >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > goes >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > up to > 100 on the 2 servers with the not-failed brick, >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > and >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > glustershd.log gets filled with a lot of entries. Load >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > on >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > the >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > server >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > with the then failed brick not that high, but still >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ~60. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Is this behaviour normal? Is there some post-heal after >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > a >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > heal >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > has >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > finished? >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > thx in advance :-) >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >>> > -- >>> >> >> >> >>> > Pranith >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> >> Pranith >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> >> > Pranith >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> > Pranith >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > Pranith >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Pranith >> >> >> >> -- >> Pranith > > > > -- > Pranith _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
