On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:58 PM Janek Bevendorff <
janek.bevendo...@uni-weimar.de> wrote:

> Ceph-fuse ?
>
> No, I am using the kernel module.
>
>
which version?


>
> Was there "Client xxx failing to respond to cache pressure" health warning?
>
>
> At first, yes (at least with the Mimic client). There were also warnings
> about being behind on trimming. I haven't seen these warnings with Nautilus
> now, but the effect is pretty much the same: boatloads of runaway inodes.
>
> I tried to find other discussions about these warnings here on the list or
> elsewhere in the Internet, but couldn't find anything useful except that it
> shouldn't happen.
>
>
>
try mounting cephfs on a machine/vm with small memory (4G~8G), then rsync
your date into mount point of that machine.


>
>
>
> The MDS nodes have  Xeon E5-2620 v4 CPUs @2.10GHz with 32 threads (Dual
> CPU with 8 physical cores each) and 128GB RAM. CPU usage is rather mild.
> While MDSs are trying to rejoin, they tend to saturate a single thread
> shortly, but nothing spectacular. During normal operation, none of the
> cores is particularly under load.
>
> > While migrating to a Nautilus cluster recently, we had up to 14
> > million inodes open, and we increased the cache limit to 16GiB. Other
> > than warnings about oversized cache, this caused no issues.
>
> I tried settings of 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 20, 50, and 90GB. Other than getting
> rid of the cache size warnings (and sometimes allowing an MDS to rejoin
> without being kicked again after a few seconds), it did not change much
> in terms of the actual problem. Right now I can change it to whatever I
> want, it doesn't do anything, because rank 0 keeps being trashed anyway
> (the other ranks are fine, but the CephFS is down anyway). Is there
> anything useful I can give you to debug this? Otherwise I would try
> killing the MDS daemons so I can at least restore the CephFS to a
> semi-operational state.
>
>
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:30 PM Janek Bevendorff wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Disclaimer: I posted this before to the cheph.io mailing list, but from
> >> the answers I didn't get and a look at the archives, I concluded that
> >> that list is very dead. So apologies if anyone has read this before.
> >>
> >> I am trying to copy our storage server to a CephFS. We have 5 MONs in
> >> our cluster and (now) 7 MDS with max_mds = 4. The list (!) of files I am
> >> trying to copy is about 23GB, so it's a lot of files. I am copying them
> >> in batches of 25k using 16 parallel rsync processes over a 10G link.
> >>
> >> I started out with 5 MDSs / 2 active, but had repeated issues with
> >> immense and growing cache sizes far beyond the theoretical maximum of
> >> 400k inodes which the 16 rsync processes could keep open at the same
> >> time. The usual inode count was between 1 and 4 million and the cache
> >> size between 20 and 80GB on average.
> >>
> >> After a while, the MDSs started failing under this load by either
> >> crashing or being kicked from the quorum. I tried increasing the max
> >> cache size, max log segments, and beacon grace period, but to no avail.
> >> A crashed MDS often needs minutes to rejoin.
> >>
> >> The MDSs fail with the following message:
> >>
> >>    -21> 2019-07-22 14:00:05.877 7f67eacec700  1 heartbeat_map is_healthy
> >> 'MDSRank' had timed out after 15
> >>    -20> 2019-07-22 14:00:05.877 7f67eacec700  0 mds.beacon.XXX Skipping
> >> beacon heartbeat to monitors (last acked 24.0042s ago); MDS internal
> >> heartbeat is not healthy!
> >>
> >> I found the following thread, which seems to be about the same general
> >> issue:
> >>
> >>
> http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2018-February/024944.html
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, it does not really contain a solution except things I
> >> have tried already. Though it does give some explanation as to why the
> >> MDSs pile up so many open inodes. It appears like Ceph can't handle many
> >> (write-only) operations on different files, since the clients keep their
> >> capabilities open and the MDS can't evict them from its cache. This is
> >> very baffling to me, since how am I supposed to use a CephFS if I cannot
> >> fill it with files before?
> >>
> >> The next thing I tried was increasing the number of active MDSs. Three
> >> seemed to make it worse, but four worked surprisingly well.
> >> Unfortunately, the crash came eventually and the rank-0 MDS got kicked.
> >> Since then the standbys have been (not very successfully) playing
> >> round-robin to replace it, only to be kicked repeatedly. This is the
> >> status quo right now and it has been going for hours with no end in
> >> sight. The only option might be to kill all MDSs and let them restart
> >> from empty caches.
> >>
> >> While trying to rejoin, the MDSs keep logging the above-mentioned error
> >> message followed by
> >>
> >> 2019-07-23 17:53:37.386 7f3b135a5700  0 mds.0.cache.ino(0x100019693f8)
> >> have open dirfrag * but not leaf in fragtree_t(*^3): [dir 0x100019693f8
> >> /XXX_12_doc_ids_part7/ [2,head] auth{1=2,2=2} v=0 cv=0/0
> >> state=1140850688 f() n() hs=17033+0,ss=0+0 | child=1 replicated=1
> >> 0x5642a2ff7700]
> >>
> >> and then finally
> >>
> >> 2019-07-23 17:53:48.786 7fb02bc08700  1 mds.XXX Map has assigned me to
> >> become a standby
> >>
> >> The other thing I noticed over the last few days is that after a
> >> sufficient number of failures, the client locks up completely and the
> >> mount becomes unresponsive, even after the MDSs are back. Sometimes this
> >> lock-up is so catastrophic that I cannot even unmount the share with
> >> umount -lf anymore and a reboot of the machine lets the kernel panic.
> >> This looks like a bug to me.
> >>
> >> I hope somebody can provide me with tips to stabilize our setup. I can
> >> move data through our RadosGWs over 7x10Gbps from 130 nodes in parallel,
> >> no problem. But I cannot even rsync a few TB of files from a single node
> >> to the CephFS without knocking out the MDS daemons.
> >>
> >> Any help is greatly appreciated!
> >>
> >> Janek
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ceph-users mailing list
> >> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to