Re: Gluter 3.12.12: performance during heal and in general

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Just an addition: in general there are no log messages in
/var/log/glusterfs/ (if you don't all 'gluster volume ...'), but on
the node with the lowest load i see in cli.log.1:

[2018-08-22 06:20:43.291055] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler]
0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now
[2018-08-22 06:20:46.291327] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler]
0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now
[2018-08-22 06:20:49.291575] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler]
0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now

every 3 seconds. Looks like this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484885 - but that shoud
have been fixed in the 3.12.x release, and network is fine.

In cli.log there are only these entries:

[2018-08-22 06:19:23.428520] I [cli.c:765:main] 0-cli: Started running
gluster with version 3.12.12
[2018-08-22 06:19:23.800895] I [MSGID: 101190]
[event-epoll.c:613:event_dispatch_epoll_worker] 0-epoll: Started
thread with index 1
[2018-08-22 06:19:23.800978] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler]
0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now
[2018-08-22 06:19:23.809366] I [input.c:31:cli_batch] 0-: Exiting with: 0

Just wondered if this could related anyhow.

2018-08-21 8:17 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Thank you! yes a link would be great. I am not as good with kernel side of
> things. So I will have to show this information to someone else who knows
> these things so expect delay in response.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users



[Index of Archives]     [Gluster Development]     [Linux Filesytems Development]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux