On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:49 PM, Oliver Freyermuth <freyerm...@physik.uni-bonn.de> wrote: > Dear Yan Zheng, > > Am 27.04.2018 um 15:32 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Oliver Freyermuth >> <freyerm...@physik.uni-bonn.de> wrote: >>> Dear Yan Zheng, >>> >>> Am 27.04.2018 um 02:58 schrieb Yan, Zheng: >>>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Oliver Freyermuth >>>> <freyerm...@physik.uni-bonn.de> wrote: >>>>> Dear Cephalopodians, >>>>> >>>>> just now that our Ceph cluster is under high I/O load, we get user >>>>> reports of files not being seen on some clients, >>>>> but somehow showing up after forcing a stat() syscall. >>>>> >>>>> For example, one user had added several files to a directory via an NFS >>>>> client attached to nfs-ganesha (which uses libcephfs), >>>>> and afterwards, all other nfs-ganesha servers saw it, and 44 of our >>>>> Fuse-clients - >>>>> but one single client still saw the old contents of the directory, i.e. >>>>> the files seemed missing(!). >>>>> This happened both when using "ls" on the directory or when trying to >>>>> access the non-existent files directly. >>>>> >>>>> I could confirm this observation also in a fresh login shell on the >>>>> machine. >>>>> >>>>> Then, on the "broken" client, I entered in the directory which seemed to >>>>> contain only the "old" content, and I created a new file in there. >>>>> This worked fine, and all other clients saw the file immediately. >>>>> Also on the broken client, metadata was now updated and all other files >>>>> appeared - i.e. everything was "in sync" again. >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing in the ceph-logs of our MDS, or in the syslogs of the >>>>> client machine / MDS. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Another user observed the same, but not explicitly limited to one machine >>>>> (it seems random). >>>>> He now uses a "stat" on the file he expects to exist (but which is not >>>>> seen with "ls"). >>>>> The stat returns "No such file", a subsequent "ls" then however lists the >>>>> file, and it can be accessed normally. >>>>> >>>>> This feels like something is messed up concerning the client caps - these >>>>> are all 12.2.4 Fuse clients. >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas how to find the cause? >>>>> It only happens since recently, and under high I/O load with many >>>>> metadata operations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds like bug in readdir cache. Could you try the attached patch. >>> >>> Many thanks for the quick response and patch! >>> The problem is to try it out. We only observe this issue on our production >>> cluster, randomly, especially during high load, and only after is has been >>> running for a few days. >>> We don't have a test Ceph cluster available of similar size and with >>> similar load. I would not like to try out the patch on our production >>> system. >>> >>> Can you extrapolate from the bugfix / patch what's the minimal setup needed >>> to reproduce / trigger the issue? >>> Then we may look into setting up a minimal test setup to check whether the >>> issue is resolved. >>> >>> All the best and many thanks, >>> Oliver >>> >> >> I think this is libcephfs version of >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/20467. I forgot to write patch for >> libcephfs, Sorry. To reproduce this, write a program that call >> getdents(2) in a loop. Add artificially delay to the loop, make the >> program iterates whole directory in about ten seconds. Run several >> instance of the program simultaneously on a large directory. Also make >> client_cache_size a little smaller than the size of directory. > > This is strange - in case 1 where our users observed the issue, > the affected directory contained exactly 1 file, which some clients saw and > others did not. > In case 2, the affected directory contained about 5 files only. > > Of course, we also have directories with many (thousands) of files in our > CephFS, and they may be accessed in parallel. > Also, we run a massive number of parallel programs (about 2000) accessing the > FS via about 40 clients. > > 1. Could this still be the same issue? > 2. Many thanks for the repro-instructions. It seems, however, this would > require quite an amount of time, > since we don't have a separate "test" instance at hand (yet) and are not > experts on the field. > We could try, but it won't be fast... And meybe it's nicer to have > something like this in the test suite, if possible. > > Potentially, it's even faster to get the fix in the next patch release, if > it's clear this can not have bad side effects. > > Also, should we transfer this information to a ticket? > > Cheers and many thanks, > Oliver >
I found an issue in the code that handle session stale message. Steps to reproduce are at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/23894. Regards Yan, Zheng >> >> Regards >> Yan, Zheng >> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Yan, Zheng >>>> >>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Oliver >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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
