Good Morning,
today i update + rebooted all gluster servers, kernel update to
4.9.0-8 and gluster to 3.12.13. Reboots went fine, but on one of the
gluster servers (gluster13) one of the bricks did come up at the
beginning but then lost connection.
OK:
Status of volume: shared
Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0
Y 2506
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0
Y 2097
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0
Y 2136
Lost connection:
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0
Y 2506
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0
Y 2097
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared N/A N/A
N N/A
gluster volume heal shared info:
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared
Status: Transport endpoint is not connected
Number of entries: -
reboot was at 06:15:39; brick then worked for a short period, but then
somehow disconnected.
from gluster13:/var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log:
[2018-08-28 04:27:36.944608] I [MSGID: 106005]
[glusterd-handler.c:6071:__glusterd_brick_rpc_notify] 0-management:
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared has disconnected from
glusterd.
[2018-08-28 04:28:57.869666] I
[glusterd-utils.c:6056:glusterd_brick_start] 0-management: starting a
fresh brick process for brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared
[2018-08-28 04:35:20.732666] I [MSGID: 106143]
[glusterd-pmap.c:295:pmap_registry_bind] 0-pmap: adding brick
/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared on port 49157
After 'gluster volume start shared force' (then with new port 49157):
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0
Y 2506
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0
Y 2097
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49157 0
Y 3994
from /var/log/syslog:
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: pending frames:
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: frame :
type(0) op(0)
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: frame :
type(0) op(0)
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]:
patchset: git://git.gluster.org/glusterfs.git
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: signal
received: 11
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: time of crash:
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]:
2018-08-28 04:27:36
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]:
configuration details:
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: argp 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: backtrace 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: dlfcn 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: libpthread 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: llistxattr 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: setfsid 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: spinlock 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: epoll.h 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: xattr.h 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: st_atim.tv_nsec 1
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]:
package-string: glusterfs 3.12.13
Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: ---------
There are some errors+warnings in the shared.log (volume logfile), but
no error message telling me why
gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared has disconnected.
Well... at the moment load is ok, all 3 servers at about 15 (but i
think it will go up when more users will cause more traffic -> more
work on servers), 'gluster volume heal shared info' shows no entries,
status:
Status of volume: shared
Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port Online Pid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y 2482
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y 2088
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y 2115
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y 2489
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y 2094
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y 2116
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y 2497
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y 2095
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y 2127
Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0 Y 2506
Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0
Y 2097
Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49157 0
Y 3994
Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A Y 4868
Self-heal Daemon on gluster12 N/A N/A Y 3813
Self-heal Daemon on gluster11 N/A N/A Y 5762
Task Status of Volume shared
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no active volume tasks
Very strange. Thanks for reading if you've reached this line :-)
2018-08-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <pkarampu@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> +Milind Changire
>
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Pranith
_______________________________________________
Gluster-users mailing list
Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
