Hm, i noticed that in the shared.log (volume log file) on gluster11 and gluster12 (but not on gluster13) i now see these warnings: [2018-08-28 07:18:57.224367] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 3054593291 [2018-08-28 07:19:17.733625] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 2595205890 [2018-08-28 07:19:27.950355] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 3105728076 [2018-08-28 07:19:42.519010] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 3740415196 [2018-08-28 07:19:48.194774] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 2922795043 [2018-08-28 07:19:52.506135] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 2841655539 [2018-08-28 07:19:55.466352] W [MSGID: 109011] [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for hash (value) = 3049465001 Don't know if that could be related. 2018-08-28 8:54 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > a little update after about 2 hours of uptime: still/again high cpu > usage by one brick processes. server load >30. > > gluster11: high cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1/; no hdd exchange so far > gluster12: normal cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/; hdd change /dev/sdd > gluster13: high cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/; hdd change /dev/sdd > > The process for brick bricksdd1 consumes almost all 12 cores. > Interestingly there are more threads for the bricksdd1 process than > for the other bricks. Counted with "ps huH p <PID_OF_U_PROCESS> | wc > -l" > > gluster11: > bricksda1 59 threads, bricksdb1 65 threads, bricksdc1 68 threads, > bricksdd1 85 threads > gluster12: > bricksda1 65 threads, bricksdb1 60 threads, bricksdc1 61 threads, > bricksdd1_new 58 threads > gluster13: > bricksda1 61 threads, bricksdb1 60 threads, bricksdc1 61 threads, > bricksdd1_new 82 threads > > Don't know if that could be relevant. > > 2018-08-28 7:04 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> 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
