On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 1:18 PM Hu Bert <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Pranith, > > i just wanted to ask if you were able to get any feedback from your > colleagues :-) > Sorry, I didn't get a chance to. I am working on a customer issue which is taking away cycles from any other work. Let me get back to you once I get time this week. > > btw.: we migrated some stuff (static resources, small files) to a nfs > server that we actually wanted to replace by glusterfs. Load and cpu > usage has gone down a bit, but still is asymmetric on the 3 gluster > servers. > > > 2018-08-28 9:24 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <[email protected]>: > > Hm, i noticed that in the shared.log (volume log file) on gluster11 > > and gluster12 (but not on gluster13) i now see these warnings: > > > > [2018-08-28 07:18:57.224367] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 3054593291 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:17.733625] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 2595205890 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:27.950355] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 3105728076 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:42.519010] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 3740415196 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:48.194774] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 2922795043 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:52.506135] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 2841655539 > > [2018-08-28 07:19:55.466352] W [MSGID: 109011] > > [dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for > > hash (value) = 3049465001 > > > > Don't know if that could be related. > > > > > > 2018-08-28 8:54 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <[email protected]>: > >> a little update after about 2 hours of uptime: still/again high cpu > >> usage by one brick processes. server load >30. > >> > >> gluster11: high cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1/; no hdd exchange so far > >> gluster12: normal cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/; hdd change > /dev/sdd > >> gluster13: high cpu; brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/; hdd change /dev/sdd > >> > >> The process for brick bricksdd1 consumes almost all 12 cores. > >> Interestingly there are more threads for the bricksdd1 process than > >> for the other bricks. Counted with "ps huH p <PID_OF_U_PROCESS> | wc > >> -l" > >> > >> gluster11: > >> bricksda1 59 threads, bricksdb1 65 threads, bricksdc1 68 threads, > >> bricksdd1 85 threads > >> gluster12: > >> bricksda1 65 threads, bricksdb1 60 threads, bricksdc1 61 threads, > >> bricksdd1_new 58 threads > >> gluster13: > >> bricksda1 61 threads, bricksdb1 60 threads, bricksdc1 61 threads, > >> bricksdd1_new 82 threads > >> > >> Don't know if that could be relevant. > >> > >> 2018-08-28 7:04 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <[email protected]>: > >>> Good Morning, > >>> > >>> today i update + rebooted all gluster servers, kernel update to > >>> 4.9.0-8 and gluster to 3.12.13. Reboots went fine, but on one of the > >>> gluster servers (gluster13) one of the bricks did come up at the > >>> beginning but then lost connection. > >>> > >>> OK: > >>> > >>> Status of volume: shared > >>> Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port > Online Pid > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> [...] > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2506 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2097 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2136 > >>> > >>> Lost connection: > >>> > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2506 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2097 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared N/A N/A > >>> N N/A > >>> > >>> gluster volume heal shared info: > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared > >>> Status: Transport endpoint is not connected > >>> Number of entries: - > >>> > >>> reboot was at 06:15:39; brick then worked for a short period, but then > >>> somehow disconnected. > >>> > >>> from gluster13:/var/log/glusterfs/glusterd.log: > >>> > >>> [2018-08-28 04:27:36.944608] I [MSGID: 106005] > >>> [glusterd-handler.c:6071:__glusterd_brick_rpc_notify] 0-management: > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared has disconnected from > >>> glusterd. > >>> [2018-08-28 04:28:57.869666] I > >>> [glusterd-utils.c:6056:glusterd_brick_start] 0-management: starting a > >>> fresh brick process for brick /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared > >>> [2018-08-28 04:35:20.732666] I [MSGID: 106143] > >>> [glusterd-pmap.c:295:pmap_registry_bind] 0-pmap: adding brick > >>> /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared on port 49157 > >>> > >>> After 'gluster volume start shared force' (then with new port 49157): > >>> > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2506 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2097 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49157 0 > >>> Y 3994 > >>> > >>> from /var/log/syslog: > >>> > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: pending > frames: > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: frame : > >>> type(0) op(0) > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: frame : > >>> type(0) op(0) > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > >>> patchset: git://git.gluster.org/glusterfs.git > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: signal > >>> received: 11 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: time of > crash: > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > >>> 2018-08-28 04:27:36 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > >>> configuration details: > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: argp 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > backtrace 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: dlfcn 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > libpthread 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > llistxattr 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: setfsid 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: spinlock > 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: epoll.h 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: xattr.h 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > st_atim.tv_nsec 1 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: > >>> package-string: glusterfs 3.12.13 > >>> Aug 28 06:27:36 gluster13 gluster-bricksdd1_new-shared[2136]: --------- > >>> > >>> There are some errors+warnings in the shared.log (volume logfile), but > >>> no error message telling me why > >>> gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared has disconnected. > >>> > >>> Well... at the moment load is ok, all 3 servers at about 15 (but i > >>> think it will go up when more users will cause more traffic -> more > >>> work on servers), 'gluster volume heal shared info' shows no entries, > >>> status: > >>> > >>> Status of volume: shared > >>> Gluster process TCP Port RDMA Port > Online Pid > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y > 2482 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y > 2088 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksda1/shared 49152 0 Y > 2115 > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y > 2489 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y > 2094 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdb1/shared 49153 0 Y > 2116 > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y > 2497 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y > 2095 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdc1/shared 49154 0 Y > 2127 > >>> Brick gluster11:/gluster/bricksdd1/shared 49155 0 Y > 2506 > >>> Brick gluster12:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49155 0 > >>> Y 2097 > >>> Brick gluster13:/gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared 49157 0 > >>> Y 3994 > >>> Self-heal Daemon on localhost N/A N/A Y > 4868 > >>> Self-heal Daemon on gluster12 N/A N/A Y > 3813 > >>> Self-heal Daemon on gluster11 N/A N/A Y > 5762 > >>> > >>> Task Status of Volume shared > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> There are no active volume tasks > >>> > >>> Very strange. Thanks for reading if you've reached this line :-) > >>> > >>> 2018-08-23 13:58 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri < > [email protected]>: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM Hu Bert <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Just an addition: in general there are no log messages in > >>>>> /var/log/glusterfs/ (if you don't all 'gluster volume ...'), but on > >>>>> the node with the lowest load i see in cli.log.1: > >>>>> > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:20:43.291055] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler] > >>>>> 0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:20:46.291327] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler] > >>>>> 0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:20:49.291575] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler] > >>>>> 0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now > >>>>> > >>>>> every 3 seconds. Looks like this bug: > >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484885 - but that shoud > >>>>> have been fixed in the 3.12.x release, and network is fine. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> +Milind Changire > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> In cli.log there are only these entries: > >>>>> > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:19:23.428520] I [cli.c:765:main] 0-cli: Started > running > >>>>> gluster with version 3.12.12 > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:19:23.800895] I [MSGID: 101190] > >>>>> [event-epoll.c:613:event_dispatch_epoll_worker] 0-epoll: Started > >>>>> thread with index 1 > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:19:23.800978] I [socket.c:2474:socket_event_handler] > >>>>> 0-transport: EPOLLERR - disconnecting now > >>>>> [2018-08-22 06:19:23.809366] I [input.c:31:cli_batch] 0-: Exiting > with: 0 > >>>>> > >>>>> Just wondered if this could related anyhow. > >>>>> > >>>>> 2018-08-21 8:17 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri < > [email protected]>: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM Hu Bert <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Good morning :-) > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> gluster11: > >>>>> >> ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ > >>>>> >> total 0 > >>>>> >> ---------- 1 root root 0 Aug 14 06:14 > >>>>> >> xattrop-006b65d8-9e81-4886-b380-89168ea079bd > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> gluster12: > >>>>> >> ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ > >>>>> >> total 0 > >>>>> >> ---------- 1 root root 0 Jul 17 11:24 > >>>>> >> xattrop-c7c6f765-ce17-4361-95fb-2fd7f31c7b82 > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> gluster13: > >>>>> >> ls -l /gluster/bricksdd1_new/shared/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop/ > >>>>> >> total 0 > >>>>> >> ---------- 1 root root 0 Aug 16 07:54 > >>>>> >> xattrop-16b696a0-4214-4999-b277-0917c76c983e > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> And here's the output of 'perf ...' which ran almost a minute - > file > >>>>> >> grew pretty fast to a size of 17 GB and system load went up > heavily. > >>>>> >> Had to wait a while until load dropped :-) > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> fyi - load at the moment: > >>>>> >> load gluster11: ~90 > >>>>> >> load gluster12: ~10 > >>>>> >> load gluster13: ~50 > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p 7897 -o > >>>>> >> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out > >>>>> >> [ perf record: Woken up 9837 times to write data ] > >>>>> >> Warning: > >>>>> >> Processed 2137218 events and lost 33446 chunks! > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Check IO/CPU overload! > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 16576.374 MB > >>>>> >> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out (2047760 samples) ] > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Here's an excerpt. > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> + 1.93% 0.00% glusteriotwr0 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.89% 0.00% glusteriotwr28 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.86% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.85% 0.00% glusteriotwr63 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.83% 0.01% glusteriotwr0 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.82% 0.00% glusteriotwr38 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.82% 0.01% glusteriotwr28 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.82% 0.00% glusteriotwr0 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr28 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.81% 0.00% glusteriotwr36 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.80% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.78% 0.01% glusteriotwr63 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.77% 0.00% glusteriotwr63 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.75% 0.01% glusteriotwr38 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.75% 0.00% glusteriotwr38 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.74% 0.00% glusteriotwr17 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.74% 0.00% glusteriotwr44 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.73% 0.00% glusteriotwr6 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.73% 0.00% glusteriotwr37 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.73% 0.01% glusteriotwr36 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> + 1.72% 0.00% glusteriotwr34 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.72% 0.00% glusteriotwr36 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> + 1.71% 0.00% glusteriotwr45 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.70% 0.00% glusteriotwr7 [unknown] [k] > >>>>> >> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> sys_getdents > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> filldir > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 libc-2.24.so [.] > >>>>> >> 0xffff80c60db8ef2b > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 libc-2.24.so [.] > >>>>> >> readdir64 > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 index.so [.] > >>>>> >> 0xffff80c6192a1888 > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> iterate_dir > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> ext4_htree_fill_tree > >>>>> >> + 1.68% 0.00% glusteriotwr15 [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >>>>> >> ext4_readdir > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> Or do you want to download the file > /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out > >>>>> >> and examine it yourself? If so i could send you a link. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > Thank you! yes a link would be great. I am not as good with kernel > side > >>>>> > of > >>>>> > things. So I will have to show this information to someone else who > >>>>> > knows > >>>>> > these things so expect delay in response. > >>>>> > > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> 2018-08-21 7:13 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM Hu Bert < > [email protected]> > >>>>> >> >> wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> Regarding hardware the machines are identical. Intel Xeon > E5-1650 > >>>>> >> >>> v3 > >>>>> >> >>> Hexa-Core; 64 GB DDR4 ECC; Dell PERC H330 8 Port SAS/SATA 12 > GBit/s > >>>>> >> >>> RAID Controller; operating system running on a raid1, then 4 > disks > >>>>> >> >>> (JBOD) as bricks. > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> Ok, i ran perf for a few seconds. > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> ------------------------ > >>>>> >> >>> perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p 7897 -o > >>>>> >> >>> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out > >>>>> >> >>> ^C[ perf record: Woken up 378 times to write data ] > >>>>> >> >>> Warning: > >>>>> >> >>> Processed 83690 events and lost 96 chunks! > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> Check IO/CPU overload! > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 423.087 MB > >>>>> >> >>> /tmp/perf.gluster11.bricksdd1.out (51744 samples) ] > >>>>> >> >>> ------------------------ > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> I copied a couple of lines: > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [unknown] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> iterate_dir > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> sys_getdents > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> filldir > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 libc-2.24.so > [.] > >>>>> >> >>> 0xffff80c60db8ef2b > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 libc-2.24.so > [.] > >>>>> >> >>> readdir64 > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 index.so > [.] > >>>>> >> >>> 0xffff80c6192a1888 > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.04% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> ext4_htree_fill_tree > >>>>> >> >>> + 8.10% 0.00% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> ext4_readdir > >>>>> >> >>> + 7.95% 0.12% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> htree_dirblock_to_tree > >>>>> >> >>> + 5.78% 0.96% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> __ext4_read_dirblock > >>>>> >> >>> + 4.80% 0.02% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> ext4_bread > >>>>> >> >>> + 4.78% 0.04% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> ext4_getblk > >>>>> >> >>> + 4.72% 0.02% glusteriotwr22 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> __getblk_gfp > >>>>> >> >>> + 4.57% 0.00% glusteriotwr3 [unknown] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> 0xffffffffffffffff > >>>>> >> >>> + 4.55% 0.00% glusteriotwr3 [kernel.kallsyms] > [k] > >>>>> >> >>> do_syscall_64 > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> Do you need different or additional information? > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> This looks like there are lot of readdirs going on which is > >>>>> >> >> different > >>>>> >> >> from > >>>>> >> >> what we observed earlier, how many seconds did you do perf > record > >>>>> >> >> for? > >>>>> >> >> Will > >>>>> >> >> it be possible for you to do this for some more time? may be a > >>>>> >> >> minute? > >>>>> >> >> Just > >>>>> >> >> want to be sure that the data actually represents what we are > >>>>> >> >> observing. > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > I found one code path which on lookup does readdirs. Could you > give > >>>>> >> > me > >>>>> >> > the > >>>>> >> > output of ls -l <brick-path>/.glusterfs/indices/xattrop on all > the > >>>>> >> > three > >>>>> >> > bricks? It can probably give a correlation to see if it is > indeed the > >>>>> >> > same > >>>>> >> > issue or not. > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> 2018-08-20 11:20 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> > Even the brick which doesn't have high CPU seems to have > same > >>>>> >> >>> > number > >>>>> >> >>> > of > >>>>> >> >>> > lookups, so that's not it. > >>>>> >> >>> > Is there any difference at all between the machines which > have > >>>>> >> >>> > high > >>>>> >> >>> > CPU > >>>>> >> >>> > vs > >>>>> >> >>> > low CPU? > >>>>> >> >>> > I think the only other thing I would do is to install perf > tools > >>>>> >> >>> > and > >>>>> >> >>> > try to > >>>>> >> >>> > figure out the call-graph which is leading to so much CPU > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > This affects performance of the brick I think, so you may > have to > >>>>> >> >>> > do > >>>>> >> >>> > it > >>>>> >> >>> > quickly and for less time. > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > perf record --call-graph=dwarf -p <brick-pid> -o > >>>>> >> >>> > </path/to/output> > >>>>> >> >>> > then > >>>>> >> >>> > perf report -i > </path/to/output/given/in/the/previous/command> > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:40 PM Hu Bert < > [email protected]> > >>>>> >> >>> > wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> gluster volume heal shared info | grep -i number > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> Number of entries: 0 > >>>>> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> Looks good to me. > >>>>> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> 2018-08-20 10:51 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> >> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> >> > There are a lot of Lookup operations in the system. But > I am > >>>>> >> >>> >> > not > >>>>> >> >>> >> > able to > >>>>> >> >>> >> > find why. Could you check the output of > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > # gluster volume heal <volname> info | grep -i number > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > it should print all zeros. > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:49 PM Hu Bert > >>>>> >> >>> >> > <[email protected]> > >>>>> >> >>> >> > wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> I don't know what you exactly mean with workload, but > the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> main > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> function of the volume is storing (incl. writing, > reading) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> images > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> (from hundreds of bytes up to 30 MBs, overall ~7TB). > The work > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> is > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> done > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> by apache tomcat servers writing to / reading from the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> volume. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> Besides > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> images there are some text files and binaries that are > stored > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> on > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> volume and get updated regularly (every x hours); we'll > try > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> to > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> migrate > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> the latter ones to local storage asap. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> Interestingly it's only one process (and its threads) > of the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> same > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> brick on 2 of the gluster servers that consumes the CPU. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> gluster11: bricksdd1; not healed; full CPU > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> gluster12: bricksdd1; got healed; normal CPU > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> gluster13: bricksdd1; got healed; full CPU > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> Besides: performance during heal (e.g. gluster12, > bricksdd1) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> was > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> way > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> better than it is now. I've attached 2 pngs showing the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> differing > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> cpu > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> usage of last week before/after heal. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> 2018-08-17 9:30 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > There seems to be too many lookup operations compared > to > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > any > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > other > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > operations. What is the workload on the volume? > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 12:47 PM Hu Bert > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > <[email protected]> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> i hope i did get it right. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared start > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> wait 10 minutes > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared info > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> gluster volume profile shared stop > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> If that's ok, i've attached the output of the info > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> command. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> 2018-08-17 8:31 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > Please do volume profile also for around 10 > minutes when > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > CPU% > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > is > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > high. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:56 AM Pranith Kumar > Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> As per the output, all io-threads are using a lot > of > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> CPU. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> It > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> is > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> better > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> to > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> check what the volume profile is to see what is > leading > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> to > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> so > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> much > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> work > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> for > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> io-threads. Please follow the documentation at > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Administrator%20Guide/Monitoring%20Workload/ > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> section: " > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Running GlusterFS Volume Profile Command" > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> and attach output of "gluster volume profile > info", > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 11:24 AM Hu Bert > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Good morning, > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> i ran the command during 100% CPU usage and > attached > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> file. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> Hopefully it helps. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> 2018-08-17 7:33 GMT+02:00 Pranith Kumar Karampuri > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > Could you do the following on one of the nodes > where > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > you > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > are > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > observing > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > high > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > CPU usage and attach that file to this thread? > We > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > can > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > find > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > what > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > threads/processes are leading to high usage. > Do this > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > for > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > say > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > 10 > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > minutes > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > when > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > you see the ~100% CPU. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > top -bHd 5 > /tmp/top.${HOSTNAME}.txt > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:37 PM Hu Bert > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > <[email protected]> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Hello again :-) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> The self heal must have finished as there are > no > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> log > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> entries > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> in > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> glustershd.log files anymore. According to > munin > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> disk > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> latency > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> (average > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> io wait) has gone down to 100 ms, and disk > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> utilization > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> has > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> gone > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> down > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> to ~60% - both on all servers and hard disks. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> But now system load on 2 servers (which were > in the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> good > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> state) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> fluctuates between 60 and 100; the server > with the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> formerly > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> failed > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> disk has a load of 20-30.I've uploaded some > munin > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> graphics of > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> cpu > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> usage: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster11_cpu31d3a.png > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster12_cpu8sem7.png > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> https://abload.de/img/gluster13_cpud7eni.png > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> This can't be normal. 2 of the servers under > heavy > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> load > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> and > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> one > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> not > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> that much. Does anyone have an explanation of > this > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> strange > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> behaviour? > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> Thx :-) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> 2018-08-14 9:37 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> <[email protected]>: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Hi there, > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > well, it seems the heal has finally > finished. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Couldn't > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > see/find > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > any > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > related log message; is there such a > message in a > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > specific > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > log > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > file? > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > But i see the same behaviour when the last > heal > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > finished: > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > all > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > CPU > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > cores are consumed by brick processes; not > only > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > by > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > formerly > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > failed > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > bricksdd1, but by all 4 brick processes (and > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > their > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > threads). > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Load > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > goes > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > up to > 100 on the 2 servers with the > not-failed > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > brick, > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > and > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > glustershd.log gets filled with a lot of > entries. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Load > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > on > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > the > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > server > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > with the then failed brick not that high, > but > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > still > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > ~60. > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > Is this behaviour normal? Is there some > post-heal > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > after > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > a > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > heal > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > has > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > finished? > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > thx in advance :-) > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > -- > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > Pranith > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> -- > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> Pranith > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > -- > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > Pranith > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > -- > >>>>> >> >>> >> >> > Pranith > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > > >>>>> >> >>> >> > -- > >>>>> >> >>> >> > Pranith > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > > >>>>> >> >>> > -- > >>>>> >> >>> > Pranith > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> > >>>>> >> >> -- > >>>>> >> >> Pranith > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > > >>>>> >> > -- > >>>>> >> > Pranith > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > -- > >>>>> > Pranith > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Pranith > -- Pranith
_______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
