[Gluster-users] Run away memory with gluster mount

Raghavendra Gowdappa rgowdapp at redhat.com
Mon Feb 5 19:45:26 UTC 2018


I missed your reply :). Sorry about that.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
> To: "Dan Ragle" <daniel at Biblestuph.com>
> Cc: "Csaba Henk" <chenk at redhat.com>, "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2018 1:14:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Run away memory with gluster mount
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I had a suggestion and a question in my previous response. Let us know
> whether the suggestion helps and please let us know about your data-set
> (like how many directories/files and how these directories/files are
> organised) to understand the problem better.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >         In the
> >         meantime can you remount glusterfs with options
> >         --entry-timeout=0 and --attribute-timeout=0? This will make sure
> >         that kernel won't cache inodes/attributes of the file and should
> >         bring down the memory usage.
> >
> >         I am curious to know what is your data-set like? Is it the case
> >         of too many directories and files present in deep directories? I
> >         am wondering whether a significant number of inodes cached by
> >         kernel are there to hold dentry structure in kernel.
> 
> </snip>
> 
> regards,
> Raghavendra
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Ragle" <daniel at Biblestuph.com>
> > To: "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "gluster-users" <gluster-users at gluster.org>, "Csaba Henk"
> > <chenk at redhat.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:28:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Run away memory with gluster mount
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/2/2018 2:13 AM, Nithya Balachandran wrote:
> > > Hi Dan,
> > > 
> > > It sounds like you might be running into [1]. The patch has been posted
> > > upstream and the fix should be in the next release.
> > > In the meantime, I'm afraid there is no way to get around this without
> > > restarting the process.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > Nithya
> > > 
> > > [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1541264
> > > 
> > 
> > Much appreciated. Will watch for the next release and retest then.
> > 
> > Cheers!
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > > 
> > > On 2 February 2018 at 02:57, Dan Ragle <daniel at biblestuph.com
> > > <mailto:daniel at biblestuph.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     On 1/30/2018 6:31 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         ----- Original Message -----
> > > 
> > >             From: "Dan Ragle" <daniel at Biblestuph.com>
> > >             To: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com
> > >             <mailto:rgowdapp at redhat.com>>, "Ravishankar N"
> > >             <ravishankar at redhat.com <mailto:ravishankar at redhat.com>>
> > >             Cc: gluster-users at gluster.org
> > >             <mailto:gluster-users at gluster.org>, "Csaba Henk"
> > >             <chenk at redhat.com <mailto:chenk at redhat.com>>, "Niels de Vos"
> > >             <ndevos at redhat.com <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>>, "Nithya
> > >             Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com
> > >             <mailto:nbalacha at redhat.com>>
> > >             Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 9:02:21 PM
> > >             Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Run away memory with gluster
> > >             mount
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >             On 1/29/2018 2:36 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                 ----- Original Message -----
> > > 
> > >                     From: "Ravishankar N" <ravishankar at redhat.com
> > >                     <mailto:ravishankar at redhat.com>>
> > >                     To: "Dan Ragle" <daniel at Biblestuph.com>,
> > >                     gluster-users at gluster.org
> > >                     <mailto:gluster-users at gluster.org>
> > >                     Cc: "Csaba Henk" <chenk at redhat.com
> > >                     <mailto:chenk at redhat.com>>, "Niels de Vos"
> > >                     <ndevos at redhat.com <mailto:ndevos at redhat.com>>,
> > >                     "Nithya Balachandran" <nbalacha at redhat.com
> > >                     <mailto:nbalacha at redhat.com>>,
> > >                     "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com
> > >                     <mailto:rgowdapp at redhat.com>>
> > >                     Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2018 10:23:38 AM
> > >                     Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Run away memory with
> > >                     gluster mount
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                     On 01/27/2018 02:29 AM, Dan Ragle wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                         On 1/25/2018 8:21 PM, Ravishankar N wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                             On 01/25/2018 11:04 PM, Dan Ragle wrote:
> > > 
> > >                                 *sigh* trying again to correct
> > >                                 formatting ... apologize for the
> > >                                 earlier mess.
> > > 
> > >                                 Having a memory issue with Gluster
> > >                                 3.12.4 and not sure how to
> > >                                 troubleshoot. I don't *think* this is
> > >                                 expected behavior.
> > > 
> > >                                 This is on an updated CentOS 7 box. The
> > >                                 setup is a simple two node
> > >                                 replicated layout where the two nodes
> > >                                 act as both server and
> > >                                 client.
> > > 
> > >                                 The volume in question:
> > > 
> > >                                 Volume Name: GlusterWWW
> > >                                 Type: Replicate
> > >                                 Volume ID:
> > >                                 8e9b0e79-f309-4d9b-a5bb-45d065faaaa3
> > >                                 Status: Started
> > >                                 Snapshot Count: 0
> > >                                 Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2
> > >                                 Transport-type: tcp
> > >                                 Bricks:
> > >                                 Brick1:
> > >                                 vs1dlan.mydomain.com:/glusterfs_bricks/brick1/www
> > >                                 Brick2:
> > >                                 vs2dlan.mydomain.com:/glusterfs_bricks/brick1/www
> > >                                 Options Reconfigured:
> > >                                 nfs.disable: on
> > >                                 cluster.favorite-child-policy: mtime
> > >                                 transport.address-family: inet
> > > 
> > >                                 I had some other performance options in
> > >                                 there, (increased
> > >                                 cache-size, md invalidation, etc) but
> > >                                 stripped them out in an
> > >                                 attempt to
> > >                                 isolate the issue. Still got the problem
> > >                                 without them.
> > > 
> > >                                 The volume currently contains over 1M
> > >                                 files.
> > > 
> > >                                 When mounting the volume, I get (among
> > >                                 other things) a process as such:
> > > 
> > >                                 /usr/sbin/glusterfs
> > >                                 --volfile-server=localhost
> > >                                 --volfile-id=/GlusterWWW /var/www
> > > 
> > >                                 This process begins with little memory,
> > >                                 but then as files are
> > >                                 accessed in the volume the memory
> > >                                 increases. I setup a script that
> > >                                 simply reads the files in the volume one
> > >                                 at a time (no writes). It's
> > >                                 been running on and off about 12 hours
> > >                                 now and the resident
> > >                                 memory of the above process is already
> > >                                 at 7.5G and continues to grow
> > >                                 slowly. If I stop the test script the
> > >                                 memory stops growing,
> > >                                 but does not reduce. Restart the test
> > >                                 script and the memory begins
> > >                                 slowly growing again.
> > > 
> > >                                 This is obviously a contrived app
> > >                                 environment. With my intended
> > >                                 application load it takes about a week
> > >                                 or so for the memory to get
> > >                                 high enough to invoke the oom killer.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                             Can you try debugging with the statedump
> > >                             (https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Troubleshooting/statedump/#read-a-statedump
> > >                             <https://gluster.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Troubleshooting/statedump/#read-a-statedump>)
> > >                             of
> > >                             the fuse mount process and see what member
> > >                             is leaking? Take the
> > >                             statedumps in succession, maybe once
> > >                             initially during the I/O and
> > >                             once the memory gets high enough to hit the
> > >                             OOM mark.
> > >                             Share the dumps here.
> > > 
> > >                             Regards,
> > >                             Ravi
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                         Thanks for the reply. I noticed yesterday that
> > >                         an update (3.12.5) had
> > >                         been posted so I went ahead and updated and
> > >                         repeated the test
> > >                         overnight. The memory usage does not appear to
> > >                         be growing as quickly
> > >                         as is was with 3.12.4, but does still appear to
> > >                         be growing.
> > > 
> > >                         I should also mention that there is another
> > >                         process beyond my test app
> > >                         that is reading the files from the volume.
> > >                         Specifically, there is an
> > >                         rsync that runs from the second node 2-4 times
> > >                         an hour that reads from
> > >                         the GlusterWWW volume mounted on node 1. Since
> > >                         none of the files in
> > >                         that mount are changing it doesn't actually
> > >                         rsync anything, but
> > >                         nonetheless it is running and reading the files
> > >                         in addition to my test
> > >                         script. (It's a part of my intended production
> > >                         setup that I forgot was
> > >                         still running.)
> > > 
> > >                         The mount process appears to be gaining memory
> > >                         at a rate of about 1GB
> > >                         every 4 hours or so. At that rate it'll take
> > >                         several days before it
> > >                         runs the box out of memory. But I took your
> > >                         suggestion and made some
> > >                         statedumps today anyway, about 2 hours apart, 4
> > >                         total so far. It looks
> > >                         like there may already be some actionable
> > >                         information. These are the
> > >                         only registers where the num_allocs have grown
> > >                         with each of the four
> > >                         samples:
> > > 
> > >                         [mount/fuse.fuse - usage-type gf_fuse_mt_gids_t
> > >                         memusage]
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 08:57:31 2018:
> > >                             784
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 10:55:50 2018:
> > >                             831
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 12:55:15 2018:
> > >                             877
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 14:58:27 2018:
> > >                             908
> > > 
> > >                         [mount/fuse.fuse - usage-type
> > >                         gf_common_mt_fd_lk_ctx_t memusage]
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 08:57:31 2018:
> > >                             5
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 10:55:50 2018:
> > >                             10
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 12:55:15 2018:
> > >                             15
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 14:58:27 2018:
> > >                             17
> > > 
> > >                         [cluster/distribute.GlusterWWW-dht - usage-type
> > >                         gf_dht_mt_dht_layout_t
> > >                         memusage]
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 08:57:31 2018:
> > >                         24243596
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 10:55:50 2018:
> > >                         27902622
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 12:55:15 2018:
> > >                         30678066
> > >                             ---> num_allocs at Fri Jan 26 14:58:27 2018:
> > >                         33801036
> > > 
> > >                         Not sure the best way to get you the full dumps.
> > >                         They're pretty big,
> > >                         over 1G for all four. Also, I noticed some
> > >                         filepath information in
> > >                         there that I'd rather not share. What's the
> > >                         recommended next step?
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                 Please run the following query on statedump files and
> > >                 report us the
> > >                 results:
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep active | wc -l
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep active_size
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep lru | wc -l
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep lru_size
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep purge | wc -l
> > >                 # grep itable <client-statedump> | grep purge_size
> > > 
> > > 
> > >             Had to restart the test and have been running for 36 hours
> > >             now. RSS is
> > >             currently up to 23g.
> > > 
> > >             Working on getting a bug report with link to the dumps. In
> > >             the mean
> > >             time, I'm including the results of your above queries for
> > >             the first
> > >             dump, the 18 hour dump, and the 36 hour dump:
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep
> > >             active | wc -l
> > >             53865
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep
> > >             active | wc -l
> > >             53864
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep
> > >             active | wc -l
> > >             53864
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep
> > >             active_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.active_size=53864
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep
> > >             active_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.active_size=53863
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep
> > >             active_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.active_size=53863
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep lru
> > >             | wc -l
> > >             998510
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep lru
> > >             | wc -l
> > >             998510
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep lru
> > >             | wc -l
> > >             995992
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep
> > >             lru_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.lru_size=998508
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep
> > >             lru_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.lru_size=998508
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep
> > >             lru_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.lru_size=995990
> > > 
> > > 
> > >         Around 1 million of inodes in lru table!! These are the inodes
> > >         kernel has just cached and no operation is currently progress on
> > >         these inodes. This could be the reason for high memory usage.
> > >         We've a patch being worked on (merged on experimental branch
> > >         currently) [1], that will help in these sceanrios. In the
> > >         meantime can you remount glusterfs with options
> > >         --entry-timeout=0 and --attribute-timeout=0? This will make sure
> > >         that kernel won't cache inodes/attributes of the file and should
> > >         bring down the memory usage.
> > > 
> > >         I am curious to know what is your data-set like? Is it the case
> > >         of too many directories and files present in deep directories? I
> > >         am wondering whether a significant number of inodes cached by
> > >         kernel are there to hold dentry structure in kernel.
> > > 
> > >         [1] https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18665/
> > >         <https://review.gluster.org/#/c/18665/>
> > > 
> > > 
> > >     OK, remounted with your recommended attributes and repeated the
> > >     test. Now the mount process looks like this:
> > > 
> > >     /usr/sbin/glusterfs --attribute-timeout=0 --entry-timeout=0
> > >     --volfile-server=localhost --volfile-id=/GlusterWWW /var/www
> > > 
> > >     However after running for 36 hours it's again at about 23g (about
> > >     the same place it was on the first test).
> > > 
> > >     A few metrics from the 36 hour mark:
> > > 
> > >     num_allocs for [cluster/distribute.GlusterWWW-dht - usage-type
> > >     gf_dht_mt_dht_layout_t memusage] is 109140094. Seems at least
> > >     somewhat similar to the original test, which had 117901593 at the 36
> > >     hour mark.
> > > 
> > >     The dump file at the 36 hour mark had nothing for lru or lru_size.
> > >     However, at the dump two hours prior it had:
> > > 
> > >     # grep itable glusterdump.67299.dump.1517493361 | grep lru | wc -l
> > >     998510
> > >     # grep itable glusterdump.67299.dump.1517493361 | grep lru_size
> > >     xlator.mount.fuse.itable.lru_size=998508
> > > 
> > >     and the same thing for the dump four hours later. Are these values
> > >     only relevant when the ls -R is actually running? I'm thinking the
> > >     36 hour dump may have caught the ls -R between runs there (?)
> > > 
> > >     The data set is multiple Web sites. I know there's some litter there
> > >     we can clean up, but I'd guess not more than 200-300k files or so.
> > >     The biggest culprit is a single directory that we use as a
> > >     multi-purpose file store, with filenames stored as GUIDs and linked
> > >     to a DB. That directory currently has 500k+ files. Another directory
> > >     serves a similar purpose and has about 66k files in it. The rest is
> > >     generally distributed more "normally", I.E., a mixed nesting of
> > >     directories and files.
> > > 
> > >     Cheers!
> > > 
> > >     Dan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep
> > >             purge | wc -l
> > >             1
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep
> > >             purge | wc -l
> > >             1
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep
> > >             purge | wc -l
> > >             1
> > > 
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517104561 | grep
> > >             purge_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.purge_size=0
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517169361 | grep
> > >             purge_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.purge_size=0
> > >             # grep itable glusterdump.153904.dump.1517234161 | grep
> > >             purge_size
> > >             xlator.mount.fuse.itable.purge_size=0
> > > 
> > >             Cheers,
> > > 
> > >             Dan
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                     I've CC'd the fuse/ dht devs to see if these data
> > >                     types have potential
> > >                     leaks. Could you raise a bug with the volume info
> > >                     and a (dropbox?) link
> > >                     from which we can download the dumps? You can
> > >                     remove/replace the
> > >                     filepaths from them.
> > > 
> > >                     Regards.
> > >                     Ravi
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                         Cheers!
> > > 
> > >                         Dan
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                                 Is there potentially something
> > >                                 misconfigured here?
> > > 
> > >                                 I did see a reference to a memory leak
> > >                                 in another thread in this
> > >                                 list, but that had to do with the
> > >                                 setting of quotas, I don't have
> > >                                 any quotas set on my system.
> > > 
> > >                                 Thanks,
> > > 
> > >                                 Dan Ragle
> > >                                 daniel at Biblestuph.com
> > > 
> > >                                 On 1/25/2018 11:04 AM, Dan Ragle wrote:
> > > 
> > >                                     Having a memory issue with Gluster
> > >                                     3.12.4 and not sure how to
> > >                                     troubleshoot. I don't *think* this
> > >                                     is expected behavior. This is on an
> > >                                     updated CentOS 7 box. The setup is a
> > >                                     simple two node replicated layout
> > >                                     where the two nodes act as both
> > >                                     server and client. The volume in
> > >                                     question: Volume Name: GlusterWWW
> > >                                     Type: Replicate Volume ID:
> > >                                     8e9b0e79-f309-4d9b-a5bb-45d065faaaa3
> > >                                     Status: Started Snapshot Count: 0
> > >                                     Number of Bricks: 1 x 2 = 2
> > >                                     Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1:
> > >                                     vs1dlan.mydomain.com:/glusterfs_bricks/brick1/www
> > >                                     Brick2:
> > >                                     vs2dlan.mydomain.com:/glusterfs_bricks/brick1/www
> > >                                     Options
> > >                                     Reconfigured:
> > >                                     nfs.disable: on
> > >                                     cluster.favorite-child-policy: mtime
> > >                                     transport.address-family: inet I had
> > >                                     some other performance options in
> > >                                     there, (increased cache-size, md
> > >                                     invalidation, etc) but stripped them
> > >                                     out in an attempt to isolate the
> > >                                     issue. Still got the problem without
> > >                                     them. The volume currently contains
> > >                                     over 1M files. When mounting the
> > >                                     volume, I get (among other things) a
> > >                                     process as such:
> > >                                     /usr/sbin/glusterfs
> > >                                     --volfile-server=localhost
> > >                                     --volfile-id=/GlusterWWW
> > >                                     /var/www This process begins with
> > >                                     little memory, but then as files are
> > >                                     accessed in the volume the memory
> > >                                     increases. I setup a script that
> > >                                     simply reads the files in the volume
> > >                                     one at a time (no writes). It's
> > >                                     been running on and off about 12
> > >                                     hours now and the resident memory of
> > >                                     the above process is already at 7.5G
> > >                                     and continues to grow slowly.
> > >                                     If I
> > >                                     stop the test script the memory
> > >                                     stops growing, but does not reduce.
> > >                                     Restart the test script and the
> > >                                     memory begins slowly growing again.
> > >                                     This
> > >                                     is obviously a contrived app
> > >                                     environment. With my intended
> > >                                     application
> > >                                     load it takes about a week or so for
> > >                                     the memory to get high enough to
> > >                                     invoke the oom killer. Is there
> > >                                     potentially something misconfigured
> > >                                     here? Thanks, Dan Ragle
> > >                                     daniel at Biblestuph.com
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                                     _______________________________________________
> > >                                     Gluster-users mailing list
> > >                                     Gluster-users at gluster.org
> > >                                     <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
> > >                                     http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> > >                                     <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
> > > 
> > >                                 _______________________________________________
> > >                                 Gluster-users mailing list
> > >                                 Gluster-users at gluster.org
> > >                                 <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
> > >                                 http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> > >                                 <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
> > > 
> > > 
> > >                         _______________________________________________
> > >                         Gluster-users mailing list
> > >                         Gluster-users at gluster.org
> > >                         <mailto:Gluster-users at gluster.org>
> > >                         http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> > >                         <http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gluster-users mailing list
> > Gluster-users at gluster.org
> > http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-users mailing list
> Gluster-users at gluster.org
> http://lists.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users


More information about the Gluster-users mailing list