[Gluster-users] High load on glusterfsd process

[Kotresh Hiremath Ravishankar]

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_20170126T113552+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_20170126T113552+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_20170126T113552+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_20170123T180550+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_20170123T180550+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_20170123T180550+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
>