I think I know the reason why tarball size is bigger, could it happen if
tar file has more than one core.
I triggered a build(https://review.gluster.org/19574 to validate all test
cases after enable brick mux) after update "exit_one_failure="no"" in
so build has executed all test cases and in the earlier version of the
patch, i was getting multiple cores.
Now it is generating only one core, it seems other code paths are fixed
so the issue should be resolved now.
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay <
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Nithya Balachandran
> <nbala...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 19 February 2018 at 13:12, Atin Mukherjee <amukh...@redhat.com>
> >> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:53 AM, Nigel Babu <nig...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>> As you all most likely know, we store the tarball of the binaries and
> >>> core if there's a core during regression. Occasionally, we've
> introduced a
> >>> bug in Gluster and this tar can take up a lot of space. This has
> >>> recently with brick multiplex tests. The build-install tar takes up
> >>> causing the machine to run out of space and continuously fail.
> >> AFAIK, we don't have a .t file in upstream regression suits where
> >> of volumes are created. With that scale and brick multiplexing enabled,
> >> can understand the core will be quite heavy loaded and may consume up to
> >> this much of crazy amount of space. FWIW, can we first try to figure out
> >> which test was causing this crash and see if running a gcore after a
> >> steps in the tests do left us with a similar size of the core file? IOW,
> >> have we actually seen such huge size of core file generated earlier? If
> >> what changed because which we've started seeing this is something to be
> >> invested on.
> > We also need to check if this is only the core file that is causing the
> > increase in size or whether there is something else that is taking up a
> > of space.
> >>> I've made some changes this morning. Right after we create the tarball,
> >>> we'll delete all files in /archive that are greater than 1G. Please be
> >>> that this means all large files including the newly created tarball
> will be
> >>> deleted. You will have to work with the traceback on the Jenkins job.
> >> We'd really need to first investigate on the average size of the core
> >> what we can get with when a system is running with brick multiplexing
> >> ongoing I/O. With out that immediately deleting the core files > 1G will
> >> cause trouble to the developers in debugging genuine crashes as
> >> alone may not be sufficient.
> I'd like to echo what Nithya writes - instead of treating this
> incident as an outlier, we might want to do further analysis. If this
> has happened on a production system - there would be blood.
Gluster-infra mailing list