Hmm, yep — that param is actually only used for the warning; I guess we forgot what it actually covers. :(
Have your monitor clocks been off by more than 5 seconds at any point? On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Nick Bartos <[email protected]> wrote: > Making 'mon clock drift allowed' very small (0.00001) does not > reliably reproduce the hang. I started looking at the code for 0.48.2 > and it looks like this is only used in Paxos::warn_on_future_time, > which only handles the warning, nothing else. > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Nick Bartos wrote: >>> Should I be lowering the clock drift allowed, or the lease interval to >>> help reproduce it? >> >> clock drift allowed. >> >> >> >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > You can safely set the clock drift allowed as high as 500ms. The real >>> > limitation is that it needs to be well under the lease interval, which is >>> > currently 5 seconds by default. >>> > >>> > You might be able to reproduce more easily by lowering the threshold... >>> > >>> > sage >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Nick Bartos wrote: >>> > >>> >> How far off do the clocks need to be before there is a problem? It >>> >> would seem to be hard to ensure a very large cluster has all of it's >>> >> nodes synchronized within 50ms (which seems to be the default for "mon >>> >> clock drift allowed"). Does the mon clock drift allowed parameter >>> >> change anything other than the log messages? Are there any other >>> >> tuning options that may help, assuming that this is the issue and it's >>> >> not feasible to get the clocks more than 500ms in sync between all >>> >> nodes? >>> >> >>> >> I'm trying to get a good way of reproducing this and get a trace on >>> >> the ceph processes to see what they're waiting on. I'll let you know >>> >> when I have more info. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > I just realized I was mixing up this thread with the other deadlock >>> >> > thread. >>> >> > >>> >> > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Nick Bartos wrote: >>> >> >> Turns out we're having the 'rbd map' hang on startup again, after we >>> >> >> started using the wip-3.5 patch set. How critical is the >>> >> >> libceph_protect_ceph_con_open_with_mutex commit? That's the one I >>> >> >> removed before which seemed to get rid of the problem (although I'm >>> >> >> not completely sure if it completely got rid of it, at least seemed to >>> >> >> happen much less often). >>> >> >> >>> >> >> It seems like we only started having this issue after we started >>> >> >> patching the 3.5 ceph client (we started patching to try and get rid >>> >> >> of a kernel oops, which the patches seem to have fixed). >>> >> > >>> >> > Right. That patch fixes a real bug. It also seems pretty unlikely >>> >> > that >>> >> > this patch is related to the startup hang. The original log showed >>> >> > clock >>> >> > drift on the monitor that could very easily cause this sort of hang. >>> >> > Can >>> >> > you confirm that that isn't the case with this recent instance of the >>> >> > problem? And/or attach a log? >>> >> > >>> >> > Thanks- >>> >> > sage >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Nick Bartos wrote: >>> >> >> >> Sorry I guess this e-mail got missed. I believe those patches came >>> >> >> >> from the ceph/linux-3.5.5-ceph branch. I'm now using the wip-3.5 >>> >> >> >> branch patches, which seem to all be fine. We'll stick with 3.5 >>> >> >> >> and >>> >> >> >> this backport for now until we can figure out what's wrong with >>> >> >> >> 3.6. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> I typically ignore the wip branches just due to the naming when I'm >>> >> >> >> looking for updates. Where should I typically look for updates >>> >> >> >> that >>> >> >> >> aren't in released kernels? Also, is there anything else in the >>> >> >> >> wip* >>> >> >> >> branches that you think we may find particularly useful? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > You were looking in the right place. The problem was we weren't >>> >> >> > super >>> >> >> > organized with our stable patches, and changed our minds about what >>> >> >> > to >>> >> >> > send upstream. These are 'wip' in the sense that they were in >>> >> >> > preparation >>> >> >> > for going upstream. The goal is to push them to the mainline stable >>> >> >> > kernels and ideally not keep them in our tree at all. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > wip-3.5 is an oddity because the mainline stable kernel is EOL'd, >>> >> >> > but >>> >> >> > we're keeping it so that ubuntu can pick it up for quantal. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I'll make sure these are more clearly marked as stable. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > sage >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Sage Weil <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >> >> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Nick Bartos wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> After removing >>> >> >> >> >> 8-libceph-protect-ceph_con_open-with-mutex.patch, it >>> >> >> >> >> seems we no longer have this hang. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > Hmm, that's a bit disconcerting. Did this series come from our >>> >> >> >> > old 3.5 >>> >> >> >> > stable series? I recently prepared a new one that backports >>> >> >> >> > *all* of the >>> >> >> >> > fixes from 3.6 to 3.5 (and 3.4); see wip-3.5 in ceph-client.git. >>> >> >> >> > I would >>> >> >> >> > be curious if you see problems with that. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > So far, with these fixes in place, we have not seen any >>> >> >> >> > unexplained kernel >>> >> >> >> > crashes in this code. >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > I take it you're going back to a 3.5 kernel because you weren't >>> >> >> >> > able to >>> >> >> >> > get rid of the sync problem with 3.6? >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > sage >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Josh Durgin >>> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> > On 11/08/2012 02:10 PM, Mandell Degerness wrote: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> We are seeing a somewhat random, but frequent hang on our >>> >> >> >> >> >> systems >>> >> >> >> >> >> during startup. The hang happens at the point where an "rbd >>> >> >> >> >> >> map >>> >> >> >> >> >> <rbdvol>" command is run. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> I've attached the ceph logs from the cluster. The map >>> >> >> >> >> >> command happens >>> >> >> >> >> >> at Nov 8 18:41:09 on server 172.18.0.15. The process which >>> >> >> >> >> >> hung can >>> >> >> >> >> >> be seen in the log as 172.18.0.15:0/1143980479. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> It appears as if the TCP socket is opened to the OSD, but >>> >> >> >> >> >> then times >>> >> >> >> >> >> out 15 minutes later, the process gets data when the socket >>> >> >> >> >> >> is closed >>> >> >> >> >> >> on the client server and it retries. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Please help. >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> We are using ceph version 0.48.2argonaut >>> >> >> >> >> >> (commit:3e02b2fad88c2a95d9c0c86878f10d1beb780bfe). >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> We are using a 3.5.7 kernel with the following list of >>> >> >> >> >> >> patches applied: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> 1-libceph-encapsulate-out-message-data-setup.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 2-libceph-dont-mark-footer-complete-before-it-is.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 3-libceph-move-init-of-bio_iter.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 4-libceph-dont-use-bio_iter-as-a-flag.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 5-libceph-resubmit-linger-ops-when-pg-mapping-changes.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 6-libceph-re-initialize-bio_iter-on-start-of-message-receive.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 7-ceph-close-old-con-before-reopening-on-mds-reconnect.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 8-libceph-protect-ceph_con_open-with-mutex.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 9-libceph-reset-connection-retry-on-successfully-negotiation.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 10-rbd-only-reset-capacity-when-pointing-to-head.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 11-rbd-set-image-size-when-header-is-updated.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 12-libceph-fix-crypto-key-null-deref-memory-leak.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 13-ceph-tolerate-and-warn-on-extraneous-dentry-from-mds.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 14-ceph-avoid-divide-by-zero-in-__validate_layout.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 15-rbd-drop-dev-reference-on-error-in-rbd_open.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 16-ceph-Fix-oops-when-handling-mdsmap-that-decreases-max_mds.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 17-libceph-check-for-invalid-mapping.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 18-ceph-propagate-layout-error-on-osd-request-creation.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 19-rbd-BUG-on-invalid-layout.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 20-ceph-return-EIO-on-invalid-layout-on-GET_DATALOC-ioctl.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 21-ceph-avoid-32-bit-page-index-overflow.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> 23-ceph-fix-dentry-reference-leak-in-encode_fh.patch >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> Any suggestions? >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > The log shows your monitors don't have time sychronized >>> >> >> >> >> > enough among >>> >> >> >> >> > them to make much progress (including authenticating new >>> >> >> >> >> > connections). >>> >> >> >> >> > That's probably the real issue. 0.2s is pretty large clock >>> >> >> >> >> > drift. >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> >> One thought is that the following patch (which we could not >>> >> >> >> >> >> apply) is >>> >> >> >> >> >> what is required: >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> 22-rbd-reset-BACKOFF-if-unable-to-re-queue.patch >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > This is certainly useful too, but I don't think it's the >>> >> >> >> >> > cause of >>> >> >> >> >> > the delay in this case. >>> >> >> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> > Josh >>> >> >> >> >> > -- >>> >> >> >> >> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>> >> >> >> >> > ceph-devel" in >>> >> >> >> >> > the body of a message to [email protected] >>> >> >> >> >> > More majordomo info at >>> >> >> >> >> > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>> >> >> >> >> ceph-devel" in >>> >> >> >> >> the body of a message to [email protected] >>> >> >> >> >> More majordomo info at >>> >> >> >> >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> -- >>> >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >>> >> >> >> ceph-devel" in >>> >> >> >> the body of a message to [email protected] >>> >> >> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> -- >>> >> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" >>> >> >> in >>> >> >> the body of a message to [email protected] >>> >> >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in >>> the body of a message to [email protected] >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >>> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
