Hi Olga, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Olga Kornievskaia" <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> > Cc: "Linux NFS Mailing list" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Dickson" <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:04:21 PM > Subject: Re: pNFS: invalid IP:port selection when talks to DS > Hi Tigran, > > I still don't have the answer to your question but I'm just puzzled > why it "works" with 4.9 (session trunking). New code would check the > server owner and if they are the same, then it would add that to the > list of addresses to trunk. I'd assume you'd be seeing the same > behavior with the new code. Thus, I'm puzzled. That aside, if you > don't want the new code to trunk between your DSs on the same server, > they should return different owner. I have no idea why 4.9 works differently. May be this no enough 'load' to trigger trunking. Anyway, I have updated our code to generate different server owners. We still need to test it, before all 600 DSes get updated. > > I'm assuming device ids are different for the DSs on different ports? Yes, each DS gets a unique id. Thanks, Tigran. > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran > <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Olga, >> >> you did not have the answer, however you gave me an important hint! >> I believe, all our DSes on a single host generate the same server >> owner during exchange-id. I guess, this can be the reason, why >> client decides to talk to an other DS. >> >> Tigran. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> >>> To: "Olga Kornievskaia" <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: "Linux NFS Mailing list" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Dickson" >>> <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:51:21 PM >>> Subject: Re: pNFS: invalid IP:port selection when talks to DS >> >>> Hi Olga, >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Olga Kornievskaia" <aglo@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> >>>> Cc: "Linux NFS Mailing list" <linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Dickson" >>>> <steved@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 9:14:34 PM >>>> Subject: Re: pNFS: invalid IP:port selection when talks to DS >>> >>>> Hi Tigran, >>>> >>>> While I don't have an answer to your question, I'd like to point out >>>> that in 4.9 is when Andy's session trunking patches when in. >>>> >>>> I'm curious this client that's now talking to the DS at port 24006 >>>> instead of 24005, did it before also earlier correctly (legally) >>>> talked to DS that was on 24006? >>> >>> Yes, earlier during testing it had legal access to DS on port 24006. >>> >>> Tigran. >>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran >>>> <tigran.mkrtchyan@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear (p)NFS-ors, >>>>> >>>>> we observe VERY unpleasant situation with pNFS in the production. >>>>> Our hosts run multiple DSes on different ports, usually 24001-24009. >>>>> With CentOS7 (3.10.0-514.6.2.el7.x86_64) we see that client takes >>>>> a wrong port number when talks to data server: >>>>> >>>>> If client uses different DSes on the same host, then at some point it starts >>>>> to send data to the wrong port number: >>>>> >>>>> Client <=> MDS: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 1 0.000000000 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.35 NFS V4 Call OPEN DH: >>>>> 0x7cbc716b/MIL-68-onebatch-80C-30s-00057.tif.metadata >>>>> 2 0.001469799 131.169.51.35 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 1) OPEN >>>>> StateID: 0xec18 >>>>> 3 0.001578128 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.35 NFS V4 Call SETATTR FH: 0x6ccf3dfa >>>>> 4 0.002657187 131.169.51.35 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 3) SETATTR >>>>> 5 0.003243819 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.35 NFS V4 Call LAYOUTGET >>>>> 6 0.014603386 131.169.51.35 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 5) LAYOUTGET >>>>> 7 0.014899121 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.35 NFS V4 Call GETDEVINFO >>>>> 8 0.015014216 131.169.51.35 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 7) GETDEVINFO >>>>> Opcode: GETDEVINFO (47) >>>>> Status: NFS4_OK (0) >>>>> layout type: LAYOUT4_NFSV4_1_FILES (1) >>>>> device index: 0 >>>>> r_netid: tcp >>>>> length: 3 >>>>> contents: tcp >>>>> fill bytes: opaque data >>>>> r_addr: 131.169.51.50.93.197 >>>>> length: 20 >>>>> contents: 131.169.51.50.93.197 >>>>> r_netid: tcp >>>>> length: 3 >>>>> contents: tcp >>>>> fill bytes: opaque data >>>>> r_addr: 131.169.51.50.93.197 >>>>> length: 20 >>>>> contents: 131.169.51.50.93.197 >>>>> notification bitmap: 6 >>>>> notification bitmap: 0 >>>>> [Main Opcode: GETDEVINFO (47)] >>>>> >>>>> 9 0.105442455 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.35 NFS V4 Call TEST_STATEID >>>>> 10 0.105521354 131.169.51.35 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 9) >>>>> TEST_STATEID >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NOTICE, that 131.169.51.50.93.197 corresponds to port 24005. >>>>> >>>>> client <=> DS >>>>> >>>>> $ tshark -r ds-write.pcap -n -z conv,tcp >>>>> 1 0.000000 131.169.251.53 → 131.169.51.50 NFS V4 Call WRITE StateID: 0xff01 >>>>> Offset: 0 Len: 3968 >>>>> 2 0.000090 131.169.51.50 → 131.169.251.53 NFS V4 Reply (Call In 1) WRITE >>>>> Status: NFS4ERR_BAD_STATEID >>>>> ================================================================================ >>>>> TCP Conversations >>>>> Filter:<No Filter> >>>>> | <- | | -> | | Total | Relative | Duration | >>>>> | Frames Bytes | | Frames Bytes | | Frames Bytes | Start | >>>>> | | >>>>> 131.169.51.50:24006 <-> 131.169.251.53:847 1 4240 >>>>> 1 168 2 4408 0.000000000 0.0001 >>>>> ================================================================================ >>>>> >>>>> NOTICE, that it talks to DS on port 24006! >>>>> >>>>> Is there know fix which is missing in CentOS7? I can't reproduce it with >>>>> 4.9 kernel (or it's harder to reproduce). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The packages are attached. >>>>> >>>>> Tigran. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
