On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:37 PM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I'm using the cluster admin user/keyring.  Is there any
> output that would be helpful?  Period, zonegroup get, etc?

 - radosgw-admin period get
 - radosgw-admin zone list
 - radosgw-admin zonegroup list

For each zone, zonegroup in result:
 - radosgw-admin zone get --rgw-zone=<zone>
 - radosgw-admin zonegroup get --rgw-zonegroup=<zonegroup>

 - rados lspools

Also, create a user with --debug-rgw=20 --debug-ms=1, need to look at the log.

Yehuda


>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:27 PM Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yeh...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:02 PM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I created a test user named 'ice' and then used it to create a bucket
>> > named
>> > ice.  The bucket ice can be found in the second dc, but not the user.
>> > `mdlog list` showed ice for the bucket, but not for the user.  I
>> > performed
>> > the same test in the internal realm and it showed the user and bucket
>> > both
>> > in `mdlog list`.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe your radosgw-admin command is running with a ceph user that
>> doesn't have permissions to write to the log pool? (probably not,
>> because you are able to run the sync init commands).
>> Another very slim explanation would be if you had for some reason
>> overlapping zones configuration that shared some of the config but not
>> all of it, having radosgw running against the correct one and
>> radosgw-admin against the bad one. I don't think it's the second
>> option.
>>
>> Yehuda
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:27 PM Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <yeh...@redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 PM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > One realm is called public with a zonegroup called public-zg with a
>> >> > zone
>> >> > for
>> >> > each datacenter.  The second realm is called internal with a
>> >> > zonegroup
>> >> > called internal-zg with a zone for each datacenter.  they each have
>> >> > their
>> >> > own rgw's and load balancers.  The needs of our public facing rgw's
>> >> > and
>> >> > load
>> >> > balancers vs internal use ones was different enough that we split
>> >> > them
>> >> > up
>> >> > completely.  We also have a local realm that does not use multisite
>> >> > and
>> >> > a
>> >> > 4th realm called QA that mimics the public realm as much as possible
>> >> > for
>> >> > staging configuration stages for the rgw daemons.  All 4 realms have
>> >> > their
>> >> > own buckets, users, etc and that is all working fine.  For all of the
>> >> > radosgw-admin commands I am using the proper identifiers to make sure
>> >> > that
>> >> > each datacenter and realm are running commands on exactly what I
>> >> > expect
>> >> > them
>> >> > to (--rgw-realm=public --rgw-zonegroup=public-zg
>> >> > --rgw-zone=public-dc1
>> >> > --source-zone=public-dc2).
>> >> >
>> >> > The data sync issue was in the internal realm but running a data sync
>> >> > init
>> >> > and kickstarting the rgw daemons in each datacenter fixed the data
>> >> > discrepancies (I'm thinking it had something to do with a power
>> >> > failure
>> >> > a
>> >> > few months back that I just noticed recently).  The metadata sync
>> >> > issue
>> >> > is
>> >> > in the public realm.  I have no idea what is causing this to not sync
>> >> > properly since running a `metadata sync init` catches it back up to
>> >> > the
>> >> > primary zone, but then it doesn't receive any new users created after
>> >> > that.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like an issue with the metadata log in the primary master zone.
>> >> Not sure what could go wrong there, but maybe the master zone doesn't
>> >> know that it is a master zone, or it's set to not log metadata. Or
>> >> maybe there's a problem when the secondary is trying to fetch the
>> >> metadata log. Maybe some kind of # of shards mismatch (though not
>> >> likely).
>> >> Try to see if the master logs any changes: should use the
>> >> 'radosgw-admin mdlog list' command.
>> >>
>> >> Yehuda
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
>> >> > <yeh...@redhat.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:44 PM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > Ok, I've been testing, investigating, researching, etc for the
>> >> >> > last
>> >> >> > week
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > I don't have any problems with data syncing.  The clients on one
>> >> >> > side
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > creating multipart objects while the multisite sync is creating
>> >> >> > them
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > whole objects and one of the datacenters is slower at cleaning up
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > shadow
>> >> >> > files.  That's the big discrepancy between object counts in the
>> >> >> > pools
>> >> >> > between datacenters.  I created a tool that goes through for each
>> >> >> > bucket
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > a realm and does a recursive listing of all objects in it for both
>> >> >> > datacenters and compares the 2 lists for any differences.  The
>> >> >> > data
>> >> >> > is
>> >> >> > definitely in sync between the 2 datacenters down to the modified
>> >> >> > time
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> > byte of each file in s3.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The metadata is still not syncing for the other realm, though.  If
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > run
>> >> >> > `metadata sync init` then the second datacenter will catch up with
>> >> >> > all
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > the new users, but until I do that newly created users on the
>> >> >> > primary
>> >> >> > side
>> >> >> > don't exist on the secondary side.  `metadata sync status`, `sync
>> >> >> > status`,
>> >> >> > `metadata sync run` (only left running for 30 minutes before I
>> >> >> > ctrl+c
>> >> >> > it),
>> >> >> > etc don't show any problems... but the new users just don't exist
>> >> >> > on
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > secondary side until I run `metadata sync init`.  I created a new
>> >> >> > bucket
>> >> >> > with the new user and the bucket shows up in the second
>> >> >> > datacenter,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > no
>> >> >> > objects because the objects don't have a valid owner.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thank you all for the help with the data sync issue.  You pushed
>> >> >> > me
>> >> >> > into
>> >> >> > good directions.  Does anyone have any insight as to what is
>> >> >> > preventing
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > metadata from syncing in the other realm?  I have 2 realms being
>> >> >> > sync
>> >> >> > using
>> >> >> > multi-site and it's only 1 of them that isn't getting the metadata
>> >> >> > across.
>> >> >> > As far as I can tell it is configured identically.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What do you mean you have two realms? Zones and zonegroups need to
>> >> >> exist in the same realm in order for meta and data sync to happen
>> >> >> correctly. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yehuda
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:46 PM David Turner
>> >> >> > <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> All of the messages from sync error list are listed below.  The
>> >> >> >> number
>> >> >> >> on
>> >> >> >> the left is how many times the error message is found.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>    1811                     "message": "failed to sync bucket
>> >> >> >> instance:
>> >> >> >> (16) Device or resource busy"
>> >> >> >>       7                     "message": "failed to sync bucket
>> >> >> >> instance:
>> >> >> >> (5) Input\/output error"
>> >> >> >>      65                     "message": "failed to sync object"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:00 AM Orit Wasserman
>> >> >> >> <owass...@redhat.com>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Hi David,
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:33 PM, David Turner
>> >> >> >>> <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The vast majority of the sync error list is "failed to sync
>> >> >> >>>> bucket
>> >> >> >>>> instance: (16) Device or resource busy".  I can't find anything
>> >> >> >>>> on
>> >> >> >>>> Google
>> >> >> >>>> about this error message in relation to Ceph.  Does anyone have
>> >> >> >>>> any
>> >> >> >>>> idea
>> >> >> >>>> what this means? and/or how to fix it?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Those are intermediate errors resulting from several radosgw
>> >> >> >>> trying
>> >> >> >>> to
>> >> >> >>> acquire the same sync log shard lease. It doesn't effect the
>> >> >> >>> sync
>> >> >> >>> progress.
>> >> >> >>> Are there any other errors?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Orit
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 2:48 PM Casey Bodley
>> >> >> >>>> <cbod...@redhat.com>
>> >> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Hi David,
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> The 'data sync init' command won't touch any actual object
>> >> >> >>>>> data,
>> >> >> >>>>> no.
>> >> >> >>>>> Resetting the data sync status will just cause a zone to
>> >> >> >>>>> restart
>> >> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >> >>>>> full sync
>> >> >> >>>>> of the --source-zone's data changes log. This log only lists
>> >> >> >>>>> which
>> >> >> >>>>> buckets/shards have changes in them, which causes radosgw to
>> >> >> >>>>> consider them
>> >> >> >>>>> for bucket sync. So while the command may silence the warnings
>> >> >> >>>>> about
>> >> >> >>>>> data
>> >> >> >>>>> shards being behind, it's unlikely to resolve the issue with
>> >> >> >>>>> missing
>> >> >> >>>>> objects
>> >> >> >>>>> in those buckets.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> When data sync is behind for an extended period of time, it's
>> >> >> >>>>> usually
>> >> >> >>>>> because it's stuck retrying previous bucket sync failures. The
>> >> >> >>>>> 'sync
>> >> >> >>>>> error
>> >> >> >>>>> list' may help narrow down where those failures are.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> There is also a 'bucket sync init' command to clear the bucket
>> >> >> >>>>> sync
>> >> >> >>>>> status. Following that with a 'bucket sync run' should restart
>> >> >> >>>>> a
>> >> >> >>>>> full sync
>> >> >> >>>>> on the bucket, pulling in any new objects that are present on
>> >> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >> >>>>> source-zone. I'm afraid that those commands haven't seen a lot
>> >> >> >>>>> of
>> >> >> >>>>> polish or
>> >> >> >>>>> testing, however.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Casey
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On 08/24/2017 04:15 PM, David Turner wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Apparently the data shards that are behind go in both
>> >> >> >>>>> directions,
>> >> >> >>>>> but
>> >> >> >>>>> only one zone is aware of the problem.  Each cluster has
>> >> >> >>>>> objects
>> >> >> >>>>> in
>> >> >> >>>>> their
>> >> >> >>>>> data pool that the other doesn't have.  I'm thinking about
>> >> >> >>>>> initiating a
>> >> >> >>>>> `data sync init` on both sides (one at a time) to get them
>> >> >> >>>>> back
>> >> >> >>>>> on
>> >> >> >>>>> the same
>> >> >> >>>>> page.  Does anyone know if that command will overwrite any
>> >> >> >>>>> local
>> >> >> >>>>> data that
>> >> >> >>>>> the zone has that the other doesn't if you run `data sync
>> >> >> >>>>> init`
>> >> >> >>>>> on
>> >> >> >>>>> it?
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 1:51 PM David Turner
>> >> >> >>>>> <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> After restarting the 2 RGW daemons on the second site again,
>> >> >> >>>>>> everything caught up on the metadata sync.  Is there
>> >> >> >>>>>> something
>> >> >> >>>>>> about having
>> >> >> >>>>>> 2 RGW daemons on each side of the multisite that might be
>> >> >> >>>>>> causing
>> >> >> >>>>>> an issue
>> >> >> >>>>>> with the sync getting stale?  I have another realm set up the
>> >> >> >>>>>> same
>> >> >> >>>>>> way that
>> >> >> >>>>>> is having a hard time with its data shards being behind.  I
>> >> >> >>>>>> haven't
>> >> >> >>>>>> told
>> >> >> >>>>>> them to resync, but yesterday I noticed 90 shards were
>> >> >> >>>>>> behind.
>> >> >> >>>>>> It's caught
>> >> >> >>>>>> back up to only 17 shards behind, but the oldest change not
>> >> >> >>>>>> applied
>> >> >> >>>>>> is 2
>> >> >> >>>>>> months old and no order of restarting RGW daemons is helping
>> >> >> >>>>>> to
>> >> >> >>>>>> resolve
>> >> >> >>>>>> this.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 10:59 AM David Turner
>> >> >> >>>>>> <drakonst...@gmail.com>
>> >> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> I have a RGW Multisite 10.2.7 set up for bi-directional
>> >> >> >>>>>>> syncing.
>> >> >> >>>>>>> This has been operational for 5 months and working fine.  I
>> >> >> >>>>>>> recently created
>> >> >> >>>>>>> a new user on the master zone, used that user to create a
>> >> >> >>>>>>> bucket,
>> >> >> >>>>>>> and put in
>> >> >> >>>>>>> a public-acl object in there.  The Bucket created on the
>> >> >> >>>>>>> second
>> >> >> >>>>>>> site, but
>> >> >> >>>>>>> the user did not and the object errors out complaining about
>> >> >> >>>>>>> the
>> >> >> >>>>>>> access_key
>> >> >> >>>>>>> not existing.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> That led me to think that the metadata isn't syncing, while
>> >> >> >>>>>>> bucket
>> >> >> >>>>>>> and data both are.  I've also confirmed that data is syncing
>> >> >> >>>>>>> for
>> >> >> >>>>>>> other
>> >> >> >>>>>>> buckets as well in both directions. The sync status from the
>> >> >> >>>>>>> second site was
>> >> >> >>>>>>> this.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>   metadata sync syncing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 full sync: 0/64 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 incremental sync: 64/64 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 metadata is caught up with master
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>       data sync source: f4c12327-4721-47c9-a365-86332d84c227
>> >> >> >>>>>>> (public-atl01)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         syncing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         full sync: 0/128 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         incremental sync: 128/128 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         data is caught up with source
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Sync status leads me to think that the second site believes
>> >> >> >>>>>>> it
>> >> >> >>>>>>> is
>> >> >> >>>>>>> up
>> >> >> >>>>>>> to date, even though it is missing a freshly created user.
>> >> >> >>>>>>> I
>> >> >> >>>>>>> restarted all
>> >> >> >>>>>>> of the rgw daemons for the zonegroup, but it didn't trigger
>> >> >> >>>>>>> anything to fix
>> >> >> >>>>>>> the missing user in the second site.  I did some googling
>> >> >> >>>>>>> and
>> >> >> >>>>>>> found the sync
>> >> >> >>>>>>> init commands mentioned in a few ML posts and used metadata
>> >> >> >>>>>>> sync
>> >> >> >>>>>>> init and
>> >> >> >>>>>>> now have this as the sync status.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>   metadata sync preparing for full sync
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 full sync: 64/64 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 full sync: 0 entries to sync
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 incremental sync: 0/64 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 metadata is behind on 70 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                 oldest incremental change not applied:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> 2017-03-01
>> >> >> >>>>>>> 21:13:43.0.126971s
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>       data sync source: f4c12327-4721-47c9-a365-86332d84c227
>> >> >> >>>>>>> (public-atl01)
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         syncing
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         full sync: 0/128 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         incremental sync: 128/128 shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>                         data is caught up with source
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> It definitely triggered a fresh sync and told it to forget
>> >> >> >>>>>>> about
>> >> >> >>>>>>> what
>> >> >> >>>>>>> it's previously applied as the date of the oldest change not
>> >> >> >>>>>>> applied is the
>> >> >> >>>>>>> day we initially set up multisite for this zone.  The
>> >> >> >>>>>>> problem
>> >> >> >>>>>>> is
>> >> >> >>>>>>> that was
>> >> >> >>>>>>> over 12 hours ago and the sync stat hasn't caught up on any
>> >> >> >>>>>>> shards
>> >> >> >>>>>>> yet.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Does anyone have any suggestions other than blast the second
>> >> >> >>>>>>> site
>> >> >> >>>>>>> and
>> >> >> >>>>>>> set it back up with a fresh start (the only option I can
>> >> >> >>>>>>> think
>> >> >> >>>>>>> of
>> >> >> >>>>>>> at this
>> >> >> >>>>>>> point)?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Thank you,
>> >> >> >>>>>>> David Turner
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>> >> >> >>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>> >> >> >>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >>>> ceph-users mailing list
>> >> >> >>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > ceph-users mailing list
>> >> >> > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
>> >> >> > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to