[Gluster-users] Gluter 3.12.12: performance during heal and in general
Pranith Kumar Karampuri
pkarampu at redhat.com
Thu Aug 23 11:58:12 UTC 2018
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:01 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> 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 <mchangir at redhat.com>
> 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 <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com> 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 <pkarampu at redhat.com
> >:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:13 AM Pranith Kumar Karampuri
> >> > <pkarampu at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com>
> 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
> >> >>> <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >> >>> > 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 <revirii at googlemail.com>
> >> >>> > 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
> >> >>> >> <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >> >>> >> > 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 <
> revirii at googlemail.com>
> >> >>> >> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >> >>> >> >> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> > <revirii at googlemail.com>
> >> >>> >> >> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >> >>> >> >> >> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> > <pkarampu at redhat.com> 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> <revirii at googlemail.com>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >> 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > <revirii at googlemail.com>
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> > 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
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> <revirii at googlemail.com>:
> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20180823/219eebb1/attachment.html>
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list