On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:18 PM Hu Bert <revirii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Pranith,
i just wanted to ask if you were able to get any feedback from your
colleagues :-)
Sorry, I didn't get a chance to. I am working on a customer issue which is taking away cycles from any other work. Let me get back to you once I get time this week.
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
--
Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
