[Gluster-devel] Too many open files

Brent A Nelson brent at phys.ufl.edu
Mon Apr 9 18:50:14 UTC 2007


It didn't survive the weekend.  Same symptom as before (65536 items under 
/proc/pid/fd for the first glusterfsd, not the second, almost all 
directories).  I have restarted glusterfsd and glusterfs on both nodes, 
just in case I goofed somewhere, but so far it looks like the bug (or a 
similar one) still exists.

Thanks,

Brent

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Brent A Nelson wrote:

> I think you're right; the makefile glitch must have thrown off the rest of 
> the compile.  A fresh attempt seems stable, and something which was 
> previously able to quickly trigger the directory fd bug now runs perfectly.
>
> Looks good!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brent
>
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Anand Avati wrote:
>
>> Brent,
>>  can you please send me your spec files? because I am able to 'ls'
>> without any problems and there is no fd leak observed. I have loaded
>> just cluster/afr, and previously had loaded all performance xlators on
>> both server and clietn side together and in both the cases things
>> worked perfectly fine.
>> 
>> I'm guessing the encrytpion makefile issue caused a bad build? (things
>> were changed in libglusterfs). the makefile is committed now though
>> (along with the -l fix). please do a make uninstall/clean/install
>> since quit a chunk of changes have gone in the last few days.
>> 
>> avati
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 03:33:30PM -0400, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>>> glusterfsd dies on both nodes almost immediately (I can ls succesfully
>>> once before it dies, but cd in and they're dead).  The glusterfs processes
>>> are still running, but I of course have "Transport endpoint is not
>>> connected."
>>> 
>>> Also, glusterfsd and glusterfs no longer seem to know where to log by
>>> default and refuse to start unless I give the -l option on each.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Anand Avati wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Brent,
>>>> the fix has been committed. can you please check if it works for you?
>>>> 
>>>> regards,
>>>> avati
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:09:26AM -0400, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>>>>> That's correct.  I had commented out unify when narrowing down the mtime
>>>>> bug (which turned out to be writebehind) and then decided I had no 
>>>>> reason
>>>>> to put it back in for this two-brick filesystem.  It was mounted without
>>>>> unify when this issue occurred.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brent
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Anand Avati wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Can you confirm that you were NOT using unify int he setup??
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>> avati
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:09:16AM -0400, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>> Awesome!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Anand Avati wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Brent,
>>>>>>>> thank you so much for your efforts of sending the output!
>>>>>>>> from the log it is clear the leak fd's are all for directories. 
>>>>>>>> Indeed
>>>>>>>> there was an issue with releasedir() call reaching all the nodes. The
>>>>>>>> fix should be committed today to tla.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks!!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> avati
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 09:18:48PM -0400, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I avoided restarting, as this issue would take a while to reproduce.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> jupiter01 and jupiter02 are mirrors of each other.  All performance
>>>>>>>>> translators are in use, except for writebehind (due to the mtime 
>>>>>>>>> bug).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> jupiter01:
>>>>>>>>> ls -l /proc/26466/fd |wc
>>>>>>>>> 65536  655408 7358168
>>>>>>>>> See attached for ls -l output.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> jupiter02:
>>>>>>>>> ls -l /proc/3651/fd |wc
>>>>>>>>> ls -l /proc/3651/fd
>>>>>>>>> total 11
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 0 -> /dev/null
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 1 -> /dev/null
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 10 -> socket:[2565251]
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 2 -> /dev/null
>>>>>>>>> l-wx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 3 ->
>>>>>>>>> /var/log/glusterfs/glusterfsd.log
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 4 -> socket:[2255275]
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 5 -> socket:[2249710]
>>>>>>>>> lr-x------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 6 -> eventpoll:[2249711]
>>>>>>>>> lrwx------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 7 -> socket:[2255306]
>>>>>>>>> lr-x------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 8 ->
>>>>>>>>> /etc/glusterfs/glusterfs-client.vol
>>>>>>>>> lr-x------ 1 root root 64 2007-04-04 20:43 9 ->
>>>>>>>>> /etc/glusterfs/glusterfs-client.vol
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Note that it looks like all those extra directories listed on
>>>>>>>>> jupiter01
>>>>>>>>> were locally rsynched from jupiter01's Lustre filesystems onto the
>>>>>>>>> glusterfs client on jupiter01.  A very large rsync from a different
>>>>>>>>> machine to jupiter02 didn't go nuts.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Anand Avati wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Brent,
>>>>>>>>>> I hope the system is still in the same state to dig some info out.
>>>>>>>>>> To verify that it is a file descriptor leak, can you please run 
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> test. On the server, run ps ax and get the PID of glusterfsd. then 
>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>> an ls -l on /proc/<pid>/fd/ and please mail the output of that. 
>>>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>>> should give a precise idea of what is happening.
>>>>>>>>>> If the system has been reset out of the state, please give us the
>>>>>>>>>> spec file you are using and the commands you ran (of some major 
>>>>>>>>>> jobs
>>>>>>>>>> like heavy rsync) so that we will try to reproduce the error in our
>>>>>>>>>> setup.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>>>> avati
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 01:12:33PM -0400, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I put a 2-node GlusterFS mirror into use internally yesterday, as
>>>>>>>>>>> GlusterFS was looking pretty solid, and I rsynced a whole bunch of
>>>>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>>>> to it.  Today, however, an ls on any of the three clients gives 
>>>>>>>>>>> me:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ls: /backup: Too many open files
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like glusterfsd hit a limit.  Is this a bug
>>>>>>>>>>> (glusterfs/glusterfsd
>>>>>>>>>>> forgetting to close files; essentially, a file descriptor leak), 
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> do I
>>>>>>>>>>> just need to increase the limit somewhere?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Gluster-devel at nongnu.org
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Shaw's Principle:
>>>>>>>>>>    Build a system that even a fool can use,
>>>>>>>>>>    and only a fool will want to use it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Shaw's Principle:
>>>>>>>>     Build a system that even a fool can use,
>>>>>>>>     and only a fool will want to use it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Shaw's Principle:
>>>>>>      Build a system that even a fool can use,
>>>>>>      and only a fool will want to use it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Shaw's Principle:
>>>>       Build a system that even a fool can use,
>>>>       and only a fool will want to use it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Shaw's Principle:
>>        Build a system that even a fool can use,
>>        and only a fool will want to use it.
>> 
>





More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list