FYI I'm using 450 pgs for my pools. -- Regards, Sébastien Han.
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Sage Weil <s...@inktank.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2013, Wido den Hollander wrote: > > On 02/23/2013 01:44 AM, Sage Weil wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, S?bastien Han wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > I finally got a core dump. > > > > > > > > I did it with a kill -SEGV on the OSD process. > > > > > > > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/ahv6hm0ipnak5rf/core-ceph-osd-11-0-0-20100-1361539008 > > > > > > > > Hope we will get something out of it :-). > > > > > > AHA! We have a theory. The pg log isnt trimmed during scrub (because teh > > > old scrub code required that), but the new (deep) scrub can take a very > > > long time, which means the pg log will eat ram in the meantime.. > > > especially under high iops. > > > > > > > Does the number of PGs influence the memory leak? So my theory is that when > > you have a high number of PGs with a low number of objects per PG you don't > > see the memory leak. > > > > I saw the memory leak on a RBD system where a pool had just 8 PGs, but after > > going to 1024 PGs in a new pool it seemed to be resolved. > > > > I've asked somebody else to try your patch since he's still seeing it on his > > systems. Hopefully that gives us some results. > > The PGs were active+clean when you saw the leak? There is a problem (that > we just fixed in master) where pg logs aren't trimmed for degraded PGs. > > sage > > > > > Wido > > > > > Can you try wip-osd-log-trim (which is bobtail + a simple patch) and see > > > if that seems to work? Note that that patch shouldn't be run in a mixed > > > argonaut+bobtail cluster, since it isn't properly checking if the scrub is > > > class or chunky/deep. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > sage > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > S?bastien Han. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Gregory Farnum <g...@inktank.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:57 AM, S?bastien Han > > > > > <han.sebast...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Is osd.1 using the heap profiler as well? Keep in mind that active > > > > > > > use > > > > > > > of the memory profiler will itself cause memory usage to increase > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > this sounds a bit like that to me since it's staying stable at a > > > > > > > large > > > > > > > but finite portion of total memory. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the memory consumption was already high before the profiler > > > > > > was > > > > > > started. So yes with the memory profiler enable an OSD might consume > > > > > > more memory but this doesn't cause the memory leaks. > > > > > > > > > > My concern is that maybe you saw a leak but when you restarted with > > > > > the memory profiling you lost whatever conditions caused it. > > > > > > > > > > > Any ideas? Nothing to say about my scrumbing theory? > > > > > I like it, but Sam indicates that without some heap dumps which > > > > > capture the actual leak then scrub is too large to effectively code > > > > > review for leaks. :( > > > > > -Greg > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > > > > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > > > > 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 majord...@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > > > > > > > -- > > Wido den Hollander > > 42on B.V. > > > > Phone: +31 (0)20 700 9902 > > Skype: contact42on > > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
