[Gluster-users] Gluter 3.12.12: performance during heal and in general
Hu Bert
revirii at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 28 06:54:11 UTC 2018
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 <revirii at googlemail.com>:
> 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 <pkarampu at redhat.com>:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>>
>>> 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
More information about the Gluster-users
mailing list