Hi Thomas, do you have any RBD created as clone from another snapshot? If yes then this would mean you still have some protected snapshots and only way to get rid of them is to flatten the cloned RBD, unprotect snapshot and delete it.
2016-11-18 12:42 GMT+01:00 Thomas Danan <thomas.da...@mycom-osi.com>: > Hi Nick, > > > > Here are some logs. The system is in IST TZ and I have filtered the logs > to get only 2 last hours during which we can observe the issue. > > > > In that particular case, issue is illustrated with the following OSDs > > > > Primary: > > ID:607 > > PID:2962227 > > HOST:10.137.81.18 > > > > Secondary1 > > ID:528 > > PID:3721728 > > HOST:10.137.78.194 > > > > Secondary2 > > ID:771 > > PID:2806795 > > HOST:10.137.81.25 > > > > In that specific example, first slow request message is detected at 16:18 > > > > 2016-11-18 16:18:51.991185 7f13acd8a700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] > : 7 slow requests, 7 included below; oldest blocked for > 30.521107 secs > > 2016-11-18 16:18:51.991213 7f13acd8a700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] > : slow request 30.521107 seconds old, received at 2016-11-18 > 16:18:21.469965: osd_op(client.2406870.1:140440919 > rbd_data.616bf2ae8944a.00000000002b85a7 > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 1449984~524288] 0.4e69d0de snapc 218=[218,1fb,1df] ondisk+write e212564) > currently waiting for subops from 528,771 > > > > I see that it is about replicating a 4MB Object with snapc context but in > my environment I have no snapshot (actually they were all deleted). Also I > was said those messages were not necessary related to object replication to > snapshot image. > > Each time I have a slow request message it is formatted as described with > 4MB Object and snapc context > > > > Rados df is showing me that I have 4 cloned objects, I do not understand > why. > > > > 15 minutes later seems ops are unblocked after initiating reconnect message > > > > 2016-11-18 16:34:38.120918 7f13acd8a700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] > : slow request 960.264008 seconds old, received at 2016-11-18 > 16:18:37.856850: osd_op(client.2406634.1:104826541 > rbd_data.636fe2ae8944a.0000000000111eec > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write 4112384~4096] > 0.f56e90de snapc 426=[426,3f9] ondisk+write e212564) currently waiting for > subops from 528,771 > > 2016-11-18 16:34:46.863383 7f137705a700 0 -- 10.137.81.18:6840/2962227 > >> 10.137.81.135:0/748393319 pipe(0x293bd000 sd=35 :6840 s=0 pgs=0 cs=0 > l=0 c=0x21405020).accept peer addr is really 10.137.81.135:0/748393319 > (socket is 10.137.81.135:26749/0) > > 2016-11-18 16:35:05.048420 7f138fea6700 0 -- 192.168.228.36:6841/2962227 > >> 192.168.228.28:6805/3721728 pipe(0x1271b000 sd=34 :50711 s=2 pgs=647 > cs=5 l=0 c=0x42798c0).fault, initiating reconnect > > > > I do not manage to identify anything obvious in the logs. > > > > Thanks for your help … > > > > Thomas > > > > > > *From:* Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk] > *Sent:* jeudi 17 novembre 2016 11:02 > *To:* Thomas Danan; n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter Maloney' > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* RE: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Do you have the OSD logs from around the time of that slow request (13:12 > to 13:29 period)? > > > > Do you also see anything about OSD’s going down in the Mon ceph.log file > around that time? > > > > 480 seconds is probably far too long for a disk to be busy for, I’m > wondering if the OSD is either dying and respawning or if you are running > out of some type of system resource….eg TCP connections or something like > that, which means the OSD’s can’t communicate with each other. > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com > <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com>] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Danan > *Sent:* 17 November 2016 08:59 > *To:* n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter Maloney' <peter.malo...@brockmann-consult.de > > > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi, > > > > I have recheck the pattern when slow request are detected. > > > > I have an example with following (primary: 411, secondary: 176, 594) > > On primary slow requests detected: waiting for subops (176, 594) during > 16 minutes !!!! > > > > 2016-11-17 13:29:27.209754 7f001d414700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] : > 7 slow requests, 7 included below; oldest blocked for > 480.477315 secs > > 2016-11-17 13:29:27.209777 7f001d414700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [WRN] : > slow request 480.477315 seconds old, received at 2016-11-17 > 13:21:26.732303: osd_op(client.2407558.1:206455044 > rbd_data.66ea12ae8944a.00000000001acbbc > [set-alloc-hint object_size 4194304 write_size 4194304,write > 1257472~368640] 0.61fe279f snapc 3fd=[3fd,3de] ondisk+write e210553) > currently waiting for subops from 176,594 > > > > So the primary OSD is waiting for subops since 13:21 (13:29 - 480 seconds) > > > > 2016-11-17 13:36:33.039691 7efffd8ee700 0 -- 192.168.228.23:6800/694486 > >> 192.168.228.7:6819/3611836 pipe(0x13ffd000 sd=33 :17791 s=2 pgs=131 > cs=7 l=0 c=0x13251de0).fault, initiating reconnect > > 2016-11-17 13:36:39.570692 7efff6784700 0 -- 192.168.228.23:6800/694486 > >> 192.168.228.13:6858/2033854 pipe(0x17009000 sd=60 :52188 s=2 pgs=147 > cs=7 l=0 c=0x141159c0).fault, initiating reconnect > > > > After this log, it seems the ops are unblocked and I do not have any more > the “currently waiting for subops from 176,594” > > > > So primary OSD was blocked during 15 minutes in total !!!! > > > > > > On the secondary OSD, I can see the following messages during the same > period (but also after and before) > > > > secondary: > > 2016-11-17 13:34:58.125076 7fbcc7517700 0 -- 192.168.228.7:6819/3611836 > >> 192.168.228.42:6832/2873873 pipe(0x12d2e000 sd=127 :6819 s=2 pgs=86 > cs=5 l=0 c=0xef18c00).fault with nothing to send, going to sandby > > > > In some other example and with some DEBUG messages activated I was also > able to see the many of the following messages on secondary OSDs. > > 2016-11-15 03:53:04.298502 7ff9c434f700 1 heartbeat_map is_healthy > 'OSD::osd_op_tp thread 0x7ff9bdb42700' had timed out after 15 > > > > Thomas > > > > *From:* Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk <n...@fisk.me.uk>] > *Sent:* mercredi 16 novembre 2016 22:13 > *To:* Thomas Danan; n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter Maloney' > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* RE: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi, > > > > Yes, I can’t think of anything else at this stage. Could you maybe repost > some dump historic op dumps now that you have turned off snapshots. I > wonder if they might reveal anything. > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com > <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com>] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Danan > *Sent:* 16 November 2016 17:38 > *To:* n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter Maloney' <peter.malo...@brockmann-consult.de > > > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > We have deleted all Snapshots and observed the system for several hours. > > From what I see this did not help to reduce the blocked ops and IO freeze > on Client ceph side. > > > > We have also tried to increase a little bit the PGs (by 8 than 128) > because this is something we should do and we wanted to see how the cluster > was behaving. > > During recovery, the number of blocked ops and associated duration > increased significantly. Also the number of impacted OSDs was much more > important. > > > > Don’t really know what to conclude from all of this … > > > > Again we have checked Disk / network / and everything seems fine … > > > > Thomas > > *From:* Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk <n...@fisk.me.uk>] > *Sent:* mercredi 16 novembre 2016 14:01 > *To:* Thomas Danan; 'Peter Maloney' > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* RE: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > The snapshot works by using Copy On Write. If you dirty even a 4kb section > of a 4MB object in the primary RBD, that entire 4MB object then needs to be > read and then written into the snapshot RBD. > > > > *From:* Thomas Danan [mailto:thomas.da...@mycom-osi.com > <thomas.da...@mycom-osi.com>] > *Sent:* 16 November 2016 12:58 > *To:* Thomas Danan <thomas.da...@mycom-osi.com>; n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter > Maloney' <peter.malo...@brockmann-consult.de> > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* RE: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > Actually I was wondering, is there any difference between Snapshot or > simple RBD image ? > > With simple RBD image when doing a random IO, we are asking Ceph cluster > to update one or several 4MB objects no ? > > So Snapshotting is multiplying the load by 2 but not more, Am I wrong ? > > > > Thomas > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com > <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com>] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Danan > *Sent:* mercredi 16 novembre 2016 13:52 > *To:* n...@fisk.me.uk; 'Peter Maloney' > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Hi Nick, > > > > Yes our application is doing small Random IO and I did not realize that > the snapshotting feature could so much degrade performances in that case. > > > > We have just deactivated it and deleted all snapshots. Will notify you if > it drastically reduce the blocked ops and consequently the IO freeze on > client side. > > > > Thanks > > > > Thomas > > > > *From:* Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk <n...@fisk.me.uk>] > *Sent:* mercredi 16 novembre 2016 13:25 > *To:* Thomas Danan; 'Peter Maloney' > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* RE: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > > > > > *From:* ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com > <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com>] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Danan > *Sent:* 15 November 2016 21:14 > *To:* Peter Maloney <peter.malo...@brockmann-consult.de> > *Cc:* ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > *Subject:* Re: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > > > Very interesting ... > > > > Any idea why optimal tunable would help here ? on our cluster we have > 500TB of data, I am a bit concerned about changing it without taking lot of > precautions . ... > > I am curious to know how much time it takes you to change tunable, size of > your cluster and observed impacts on client IO ... > > > > Yes We do have daily rbd snapshot from 16 different ceph RBD clients. > Snapshoting the RBD image is quite immediate while we are seing the issue > continuously during the day... > > > > Just to point out that when you take a snapshot any writes to the original > RBD will mean that the full 4MB object is copied into the snapshot. If you > have a lot of small random IO going on the original RBD this can lead to > massive write amplification across the cluster and may cause issues such as > what you describe. > > > > Also be aware that deleting large snapshots also puts significant strain > on the OSD’s as they try and delete hundreds of thousands of objects. > > > > > > Will check all of this tomorrow . .. > > > > Thanks again > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > Sent from my Samsung device > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Peter Maloney <peter.malo...@brockmann-consult.de> > Date: 11/15/16 21:27 (GMT+01:00) > To: Thomas Danan <thomas.da...@mycom-osi.com> > Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] ceph cluster having blocke requests very > frequently > > On 11/15/16 14:05, Thomas Danan wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > > > Ceph cluster version is 0.94.5 and we are running with Firefly tunables > and also we have 10KPGs instead of the 30K / 40K we should have. > > The linux kernel version is 3.10.0-327.36.1.el7.x86_64 with RHEL 7.2 > > > > On our side we havethe following settings: > > mon_osd_adjust_heartbeat_grace = false > > mon_osd_adjust_down_out_interval = false > > mon_osd_min_down_reporters = 5 > > mon_osd_min_down_reports = 10 > > > > explaining why the OSDs are not flapping but still they are behaving > wrongly and generate the slow requests I am describing. > > > > The osd_op_complaint_time is with the default value (30 sec), not sure I > want to change it base on your experience > I wasn't saying you should set the complaint time to 5, just saying > that's why I have complaints logged with such low block times. > > Thomas > > And now I'm testing this: > osd recovery sleep = 0.5 > osd snap trim sleep = 0.5 > > (or fiddling with it as low as 0.1 to make it rebalance faster) > > While also changing tunables to optimal (which will rebalance 75% of the > objects) > Which has very good results so far (a few <14s blocks right at the > start, and none since, over an hour ago). > > And I'm somehow hoping that will fix my rbd export-diff issue too... but > it at least appears to fix the rebalance causing blocks. > > Do you use rbd snapshots? I think that may be causing my issues, based > on things like: > > > "description": "osd_op(client.692201.0:20455419 4.1b5a5bc1 > > rbd_data.94a08238e1f29.000000000000617b [] snapc 918d=[918d] > > ack+ondisk+write+known_if_redirected e40036)", > > "initiated_at": "2016-11-15 20:57:48.313432", > > "age": 409.634862, > > "duration": 3.377347, > > ... > > { > > "time": "2016-11-15 20:57:48.313767", > > "event": "waiting for subops from 0,1,8,22" > > }, > > ... > > { > > "time": "2016-11-15 20:57:51.688530", > > "event": "sub_op_applied_rec from 22" > > }, > > > Which says "snapc" in there (CoW?), and I think shows that just one osd > is delayed a few seconds and the rest are really fast, like you said. > (and not sure why I see 4 osds here when I have size 3... node1 osd 0 > and 1, and node3 osd 8 and 22) > > or some (shorter I think) have description like: > > osd_repop(client.426591.0:203051290 4.1f9 > > 4:9fe4c001:::rbd_data.4cf92238e1f29.00000000000014ef:head v > 40047'2531604) > > > ------------------------------ > > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > > [image: Image removed by sender. > http://xo4t.mj.am/oo/AEQAGYdm82UAAAAAAAAAAF3gdwwAADNJBWwAAAAAAACRXwBYLFAu89l32p_-QqGp_M1_aUl11wAAlBI/1421cc76/e.gif] > > > ------------------------------ > > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > > ------------------------------ > > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > ------------------------------ > > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > ------------------------------ > > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > > > ------------------------------ > > This electronic message contains information from Mycom which may be > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use > of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended > recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or any other > use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received > this electronic message in error, please notify us by post or telephone (to > the numbers or correspondence address above) or by email (at the email > address above) immediately. > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > -- Pozdrawiam, Tomasz Kuzemko tom...@kuzemko.net
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
