[Gluster-devel] [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process

[ABHISHEK PALIWAL]

Hi Kotresh,

Could you please update whether it is possible to get the patch or bakport
this patch on Gluster 3.7.6 version.

Regards,
Abhishek

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 6:14 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal at gmail.com>
wrote:

> What is the way to take this patch on Gluster 3.7.6 or only way to upgrade
> the version?
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:22 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <abhishpaliwal at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Kotresh,
>>
>> I have seen the patch available on the link which you shared. It seems we
>> don't have some files in gluser 3.7.6 which you modified in the patch.
>>
>> Is there any possibility to provide the patch for Gluster 3.7.6?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Abhishek
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
>> khiremat at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Abhishek,
>>>
>>> Bitrot requires versioning of files to be down on writes.
>>> This was being done irrespective of whether bitrot is
>>> enabled or not. This takes considerable CPU. With the
>>> fix https://review.gluster.org/#/c/14442/, it is made
>>> optional and is enabled only with bitrot. If bitrot
>>> is not enabled, then you won't see any setxattr/getxattrs
>>> related to bitrot.
>>>
>>> The fix would be available in 3.11.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks and Regards,
>>> Kotresh H R
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: "ABHISHEK PALIWAL" <abhishpaliwal at gmail.com>
>>> > To: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>>> > Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel at gluster.org>, "gluster-users" <
>>> gluster-users at gluster.org>, "Kotresh Hiremath
>>> > Ravishankar" <khiremat at redhat.com>
>>> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 11:30:57 AM
>>> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process
>>> >
>>> > Hi Kotresh,
>>> >
>>> > Could you please update me on this?
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Abhishek
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri <
>>> > pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > +Kotresh who seems to have worked on the bug you mentioned.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:21 PM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <
>>> > > abhishpaliwal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> If the patch provided in that case will resolve my bug as well then
>>> > >> please provide the patch so that I will backport it on 3.7.6
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 11:30 AM, ABHISHEK PALIWAL <
>>> > >> abhishpaliwal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> Hi Team,
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I have noticed that there are so many glusterfsd threads are
>>> running in
>>> > >>> my system and we observed some of those thread consuming more cpu.
>>> I
>>> > >>> did “strace” on two such threads (before the problem disappeared by
>>> > >>> itself)
>>> > >>> and found that there is a continuous activity like below:
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> lstat("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92f8-4
>>> > >>> dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_20170
>>> 126T113552+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> {st_mode=S_IFREG|0670, st_size=1995, ...}) = 0
>>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
>>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_2
>>> 0170126T113552+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.bad-file", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
>>> data
>>> > >>> available)
>>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
>>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/firewall_-J208482-4000025_2
>>> 0170126T113552+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.signature", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
>>> data
>>> > >>> available)
>>> > >>> lstat("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92f8-4
>>> > >>> dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170123T
>>> 180550+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> {st_mode=S_IFREG|0670, st_size=169, ...}) = 0
>>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
>>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170
>>> 123T180550+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.bad-file", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
>>> data
>>> > >>> available)
>>> > >>> lgetxattr("/opt/lvmdir/c2/brick/.glusterfs/e7/7d/e77d12b3-92
>>> > >>> f8-4dfe-9a7f-246e901cbdf1/002700/tcli_-J208482-4000025_20170
>>> 123T180550+0000.log.gz",
>>> > >>> "trusted.bit-rot.signature", 0x3fff81f58550, 255) = -1 ENODATA (No
>>> data
>>> > >>> available)
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> I have found the below existing issue which is very similar to my
>>> > >>> scenario.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1298258
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> We are using the gluster-3.7.6 and it seems that the issue is
>>> fixed in
>>> > >>> 3.8.4 version.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Could you please let me know why it showing the number of above
>>> logs and
>>> > >>> reason behind it as it is not explained in the above bug.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Regards,
>>> > >>> Abhishek
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> --
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Regards
>>> > >>> Abhishek Paliwal
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> --
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Regards
>>> > >> Abhishek Paliwal
>>> > >>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> Gluster-users mailing list
>>> > >> Gluster-users at gluster.org
>>> > >> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Pranith
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Abhishek Paliwal
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Abhishek Paliwal
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> Regards
> Abhishek Paliwal
>



-- 




Regards
Abhishek Paliwal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20170425/84e25932/attachment.html>