> On 15 Oct 2024, at 18:57, Kai Stian Olstad wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 05:36:15PM +, Mat Young wrote:
>> Looking at the smartlog seems to show 63C current temp with 53C as worst
>> case which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could they drive be thermally
>> throttling?
>
> That is th
15, 2024, at 1:36 PM, Mat Young wrote:
Looking at the smartlog seems to show 63C current temp with 53C as worst case
which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could they drive be thermally throttling?
Rgds
mat
From: Tim Sauerbein
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:21 AM
To: ceph-users
Subject:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2024 at 05:36:15PM +, Mat Young wrote:
Looking at the smartlog seems to show 63C current temp with 53C as worst case
which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could they drive be thermally throttling?
That is the normalized value, shouldn't the value in RAW_VALUE be used instead?
Could they drive be thermally throttling?
>
> Rgds
>
> mat
>
> From: Tim Sauerbein
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:21 AM
> To: ceph-users
> Subject: [ceph-users] Re: SLOW_OPS problems
>
> [External: Do not click links or open attachments without verifying
&
ung wrote:
>
> Looking at the smartlog seems to show 63C current temp with 53C as worst case
> which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could they drive be thermally throttling?
>
> Rgds
>
> mat
>
> From: Tim Sauerbein
> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:21 AM
> To: ce
Looking at the smartlog seems to show 63C current temp with 53C as worst case
which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Could they drive be thermally throttling?
Rgds
mat
From: Tim Sauerbein
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 11:21 AM
To: ceph-users
Subject: [ceph-users] Re: SLOW_OPS problems
Sorry, forgot to mention:
I did a secure erase on the drive yesterday, added it to the OSD again with the
same result of slow ops a few hours later.
> On 15 Oct 2024, at 16:07, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
>
>> On 14 Oct 2024, at 16:01, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
>>
>> Remind me, have you sent me a full
> On 14 Oct 2024, at 16:01, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
>
> Remind me, have you sent me a full `smartctl -a` output for this drive?
See here, looks good though:
https://gist.github.com/sauerbein/6423231adb954d28c8c82a8422256355
> If there’s a firmware update available, updating it with a subsequent
>>> Out of curiosity - have you found out what was the problem with that OSD?
>>> Some hardware issues?
>> I guess the SSD is faulty, even though it doesn't show any issues in SMART.
>> I will replace it next week to bring the OSD back online and will report if
>> the issue reappears, which wo
On 10/14/24 05:05, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
On 14 Oct 2024, at 10:12, Igor Fedotov wrote:
Out of curiosity - have you found out what was the problem with that OSD? Some
hardware issues?
I guess the SSD is faulty, even though it doesn't show any issues in SMART. I
will replace it next week to br
> On 14 Oct 2024, at 10:12, Igor Fedotov wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity - have you found out what was the problem with that OSD?
> Some hardware issues?
I guess the SSD is faulty, even though it doesn't show any issues in SMART. I
will replace it next week to bring the OSD back online and will
Hi Tim,
thanks for the feedback, highly appreciated.
Out of curiosity - have you found out what was the problem with that
OSD? Some hardware issues?
Regards,
Igor
On 10/14/2024 11:58 AM, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
Hi Igor,
Thanks for the valuable advice! I just wanted to provide feedback that
Hi Igor,
Thanks for the valuable advice! I just wanted to provide feedback that it was
indeed one single OSD causing the issues which I could triangulate as you said.
After removing this OSD, the slow ops haven't occurred anymore.
Best regards,
Tim
> On 1 Oct 2024, at 12:42, Igor Fedotov wrot
Hi Tim,
first of all - given the provided logs - all the slow operastions are
stuck in 'waiting for sub ops' state.
Which apparently means that reported OSDs aren't suffering from local
issues but stuck on replication operations to their peer OSDs.
From my experince even a single "faulty" o
My point is that you may have more 10-30s delays that aren’t surfaced.
> On Sep 30, 2024, at 10:17 AM, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies everyone!
>
>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 13:10, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
>>
>> Remember that slow ops are a top of the iceberg thing, you only see on
Thanks for the replies everyone!
> On 30 Sep 2024, at 13:10, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
>
> Remember that slow ops are a top of the iceberg thing, you only see ones that
> crest above 30s
So far metrics of the hosted VMs show no other I/O slowdown except when these
hiccups occur.
> On 30 Sep 2024
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04:30AM +0100, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
>
> > On 30 Sep 2024, at 06:23, Joachim Kraftmayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > do you see the behaviour across all devices or does it only affect one
> > type/manufacturer?
>
> All devices are affected equally, every time one or two random
Hi Tim,
there is no log attached to your post, you better share it via some
other means.
BTW - what log did you mean - monitor or OSD one?
It would be nice to have logs for a couple of OSDs suffering from slow
ops, preferably relevant to two different cases.
Thanks,
Igor
On 9/29/2024 3
Remember that slow ops are a top of the iceberg thing, you only see ones that
crest above 30s
> On Sep 30, 2024, at 6:06 AM, Tim Sauerbein wrote:
>
>
>> On 30 Sep 2024, at 06:23, Joachim Kraftmayer
>> wrote:
>>
>> do you see the behaviour across all devices or does it only affect one
>> t
> On 30 Sep 2024, at 06:23, Joachim Kraftmayer
> wrote:
>
> do you see the behaviour across all devices or does it only affect one
> type/manufacturer?
All devices are affected equally, every time one or two random ODSs report slow
ops. So I don't think the SSDs are to blame.
Thanks,
Tim
_
Hi Tim,
do you see the behaviour across all devices or does it only affect one
type/manufacturer?
Joachim
www.clyso.com
Hohenzollernstr. 27, 80801 Munich
Utting a. A. | HR: Augsburg | HRB: 25866 | USt. ID-Nr.: DE2754306
Tim Sauerbein schrieb am So., 29. Sept. 2024, 23:32:
> Dear list,
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
