[Gluster-users] Gluter 3.12.12: performance during heal and in general
Hu Bert
revirii at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 28 07:24:37 UTC 2018
Hm, i noticed that in the shared.log (volume log file) on gluster11
and gluster12 (but not on gluster13) i now see these warnings:
[2018-08-28 07:18:57.224367] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 3054593291
[2018-08-28 07:19:17.733625] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 2595205890
[2018-08-28 07:19:27.950355] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 3105728076
[2018-08-28 07:19:42.519010] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 3740415196
[2018-08-28 07:19:48.194774] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 2922795043
[2018-08-28 07:19:52.506135] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 2841655539
[2018-08-28 07:19:55.466352] W [MSGID: 109011]
[dht-layout.c:186:dht_layout_search] 0-shared-dht: no subvolume for
hash (value) = 3049465001
Don't know if that could be related.
2018-08-28 8:54 GMT+02:00 Hu Bert <revirii at googlemail.com>:
> 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