Hi Pranith, i just wanted to ask if you were able to get any feedback from your colleagues :-) btw.: we migrated some stuff (static resources, small files) to a nfs server that we actually wanted to replace by glusterfs. Load and cpu usage has gone down a bit, but still is asymmetric on the 3 gluster servers. 2018-08-28 9:24 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > 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
