So may I restart the volume and start the test, or you need something else from this issue?
2014-10-13 19:49 GMT+03:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]>: > > On 10/13/2014 10:03 PM, Roman wrote: > > hmm, > seems like another strange issue? Seen this before. Had to restart the > volume to get my empty space back. > root@glstor-cli:/srv/nfs/HA-WIN-TT-1T# ls -l > total 943718400 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 966367641600 Oct 13 16:55 disk > root@glstor-cli:/srv/nfs/HA-WIN-TT-1T# rm disk > root@glstor-cli:/srv/nfs/HA-WIN-TT-1T# df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail > Use% Mounted on > rootfs 282G 1.1G 266G > 1% / > udev 10M 0 10M > 0% /dev > tmpfs 1.4G 228K 1.4G > 1% /run > /dev/disk/by-uuid/c62ee3c0-c0e5-44af-b0cd-7cb3fbcc0fba 282G 1.1G 266G > 1% / > tmpfs 5.0M 0 5.0M > 0% /run/lock > tmpfs 5.2G 0 5.2G > 0% /run/shm > stor1:HA-WIN-TT-1T 1008G 901G 57G > 95% /srv/nfs/HA-WIN-TT-1T > > no file, but size is still 901G. > Both servers show the same. > Do I really have to restart the volume to fix that? > > IMO this can happen if there is an fd leak. open-fd is the only variable > that can change with volume restart. How do you re-create the bug? > > Pranith > > > 2014-10-13 19:30 GMT+03:00 Roman <[email protected]>: > >> Sure. >> I'll let it to run for this night . >> >> 2014-10-13 19:19 GMT+03:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]>: >> >>> hi Roman, >>> Do you think we can run this test again? this time, could you >>> enable 'gluster volume profile <volname> start', do the same test. Provide >>> output of 'gluster volume profile <volname> info' and logs after the test? >>> >>> Pranith >>> >>> On 10/13/2014 09:45 PM, Roman wrote: >>> >>> Sure ! >>> >>> root@stor1:~# gluster volume info >>> >>> Volume Name: HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster >>> Type: Replicate >>> Volume ID: 66e38bde-c5fa-4ce2-be6e-6b2adeaa16c2 >>> Status: Started >>> Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2 >>> Transport-type: tcp >>> Bricks: >>> Brick1: stor1:/exports/HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster/2TB >>> Brick2: stor2:/exports/HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster/2TB >>> Options Reconfigured: >>> nfs.disable: 0 >>> network.ping-timeout: 10 >>> >>> Volume Name: HA-WIN-TT-1T >>> Type: Replicate >>> Volume ID: 2937ac01-4cba-44a8-8ff8-0161b67f8ee4 >>> Status: Started >>> Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2 >>> Transport-type: tcp >>> Bricks: >>> Brick1: stor1:/exports/NFS-WIN/1T >>> Brick2: stor2:/exports/NFS-WIN/1T >>> Options Reconfigured: >>> nfs.disable: 1 >>> network.ping-timeout: 10 >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-10-13 19:09 GMT+03:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri <[email protected]> >>> : >>> >>>> Could you give your 'gluster volume info' output? >>>> >>>> Pranith >>>> >>>> On 10/13/2014 09:36 PM, Roman wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've got this kind of setup (servers run replica) >>>> >>>> >>>> @ 10G backend >>>> gluster storage1 >>>> gluster storage2 >>>> gluster client1 >>>> >>>> @1g backend >>>> other gluster clients >>>> >>>> Servers got HW RAID5 with SAS disks. >>>> >>>> So today I've desided to create a 900GB file for iscsi target that >>>> will be located @ glusterfs separate volume, using dd (just a dummy file >>>> filled with zeros, bs=1G count 900) >>>> For the first of all the process took pretty lots of time, the writing >>>> speed was 130 MB/sec (client port was 2 gbps, servers ports were running @ >>>> 1gbps). >>>> Then it reported something like "endpoint is not connected" and all of >>>> my VMs on the other volume started to give me IO errors. >>>> Servers load was around 4,6 (total 12 cores) >>>> >>>> Maybe it was due to timeout of 2 secs, so I've made it a big higher, >>>> 10 sec. >>>> >>>> Also during the dd image creation time, VMs very often reported me >>>> that their disks are slow like >>>> >>>> WARNINGs: Read IO Wait time is -0.02 (outside range [0:1]). >>>> >>>> Is 130MB /sec is the maximum bandwidth for all of the volumes in total? >>>> That why would we need 10g backends? >>>> >>>> HW Raid local speed is 300 MB/sec, so it should not be an issue. any >>>> ideas or mby any advices? >>>> >>>> >>>> Maybe some1 got optimized sysctl.conf for 10G backend? >>>> >>>> mine is pretty simple, which can be found from googling. >>>> >>>> >>>> just to mention: those VM-s were connected using separate 1gbps >>>> intraface, which means, they should not be affected by the client with 10g >>>> backend. >>>> >>>> >>>> logs are pretty useless, they just say this during the outage >>>> >>>> >>>> [2014-10-13 12:09:18.392910] W >>>> [client-handshake.c:276:client_ping_cbk] >>>> 0-HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster-client-0: timer must have expired >>>> >>>> [2014-10-13 12:10:08.389708] C >>>> [client-handshake.c:127:rpc_client_ping_timer_expired] >>>> 0-HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster-client-0: server 10.250.0.1:49159 has not >>>> responded in the last 2 seconds, disconnecting. >>>> >>>> [2014-10-13 12:10:08.390312] W [client-handshake.c:276:client_ping_cbk] >>>> 0-HA-2TB-TT-Proxmox-cluster-client-0: timer must have expired >>>> so I decided to set the timout a bit higher. >>>> >>>> So it seems to me, that under high load GlusterFS is not useable? 130 >>>> MB/s is not that much to get some kind of timeouts or makeing the systme so >>>> slow, that VM-s feeling themselves bad. >>>> >>>> Of course, after the disconnection, healing process was started, but >>>> as VM-s lost connection to both of servers, it was pretty useless, they >>>> could not run anymore. and BTW, when u load the server with such huge job >>>> (dd of 900GB), healing process goes soooooo slow :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Roman. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gluster-users mailing >>>> [email protected]http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Roman. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Roman. >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > Roman. > > > -- Best regards, Roman.
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
