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

Tue Apr 25 07:17:16 UTC 2017

Thanks Kotresh.

Let me discuss in my team and will let you know.

Regards,
Abhishek

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar <
khiremat at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi Abhishek,
>
> As this is an enhancement it won't be back ported to 3.7/3.8/3.10
> It would be only available from upcoming 3.11 release.
>
> But I did try applying it to 3.7.6. It has lot of conflicts.
> If it's important for you, you can upgrade to latest version.
> available and back port it. If it's impossible to upgrade to
> latest version, atleast 3.7.20 would do. It has minimal
> conflicts. I can help you out with that.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Kotresh H R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ABHISHEK PALIWAL" <abhishpaliwal at gmail.com>
> > To: "Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar" <khiremat at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>, "Gluster Devel" <
> gluster-devel at gluster.org>, "gluster-users"
> > <gluster-users at gluster.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 10:58:41 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process
> >
> > 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
> >
>

-- 

Regards
Abhishek Paliwal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20170425/ac0ca3a6/attachment.html>