Hi Eugen,
Thanks for the update.
The message still appears in the logs these days. Option client_oc_size in
my cluster is 100MB from the start. I have configured
mds_cache_memory_limit
to 4G and from then on the message reduced.
What I noticed is that the mds task reserves 6G memory(in top) whil
Hi,
I would like to update this thread for others struggling with cache pressure.
The last time we hit that message was more than three weeks ago
(workload has not changed), so it seems as our current configuration
is fitting our workload.
Reducing client_oc_size to 100 MB (from default 200
Hi,
I think it does have positive effect on the messages. Cause I get fewer
messages than before.
that's nice. I also receive definitely less cache pressure messages
than before.
I also started to play around with the client side cache
configuration. I halved the client object cache size f
Hi Eugen,
I think it does have positive effect on the messages. Cause I get fewer
messages than before.
Eugen Block 于2018年8月20日周一 下午9:29写道：
> Update: we are getting these messages again.
>
> So the search continues...
>
>
> Zitat von Eugen Block :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Depending on your kernel (memo
Update: we are getting these messages again.
So the search continues...
Zitat von Eugen Block :
Hi,
Depending on your kernel (memory leaks with CephFS) increasing the
mds_cache_memory_limit could be of help. What is your current
setting now?
ceph:~ # ceph daemon mds. config show | grep
Hi,
currently our ceph servers use 4.4.104, our clients mostly have newer
versions, something like 4.4.126.
I set mds_cache_memory_limit from 1G to 2G, and then to 4G. I still get the
warning
messages, and the messages would disappear in 1 or 2 minutes.
Did at least the number of clients d
Hi, Eugen,
I set mds_cache_memory_limit from 1G to 2G, and then to 4G. I still get the
warning
messages, and the messages would disappear in 1 or 2 minutes.
Which version do your kernels use?
Zhenshi Zhou 于2018年8月13日周一 下午10:15写道：
> Hi Eugen,
> The command shows "mds_cache_memory_limit": "1073741
Hi Wido,
The server and client use the same version, 12.2.5. And the command shows:
# ceph versions
{
"mon": {
"ceph version 12.2.5 (cad919881333ac92274171586c827e01f554a70a)
luminous (stable)": 3
},
"mgr": {
"ceph version 12.2.5 (cad919881333ac92274171586c827e01f554a70a
Hi Eugen,
The command shows "mds_cache_memory_limit": "1073741824".
And I'll increase the cache size for a try.
Thanks
Eugen Block 于2018年8月13日周一 下午9:48写道：
> Hi,
>
> Depending on your kernel (memory leaks with CephFS) increasing the
> mds_cache_memory_limit could be of help. What is your current
Hi,
Depending on your kernel (memory leaks with CephFS) increasing the
mds_cache_memory_limit could be of help. What is your current setting
now?
ceph:~ # ceph daemon mds. config show | grep mds_cache_memory_limit
We had these messages for months, almost every day.
It would occur when hour
On 08/13/2018 01:22 PM, Zhenshi Zhou wrote:
> Hi,
> Recently, the cluster runs healthy, but I get warning messages everyday:
>
Which version of Ceph? Which version of clients?
Can you post:
$ ceph versions
$ ceph features
$ ceph fs status
Wido
> 2018-08-13 17:39:23.682213 [INF] Cluster is
Hi Oliver,
Our corresponding RHCS downstream release of CephFS will be labeled "Tech
Preview" which means its unsupported, but we believe that it's stable
enough for experimentation. When we do release Cephfs as "production
ready" that means we've done even more exhaustive testing and that this i
ent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:36 AM
To: Andrus, Brian Contractor
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] failing to respond to cache pressure
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
wrote:
Both client and server are Jewel 10.2.0
So the fuse client, correct? If
Hi Brett,
aside from the question if what Brian experience has anything to do with
code stability:
since this is new for me, that there is a difference between "stable"
and "production ready" i would be happy if you could tell me how the
table looks like.
One of the team was joking something lik
School
> Monterey, California
> voice: 831-656-6238
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: John Spray [mailto:jsp...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:36 AM
> To: Andrus, Brian Contractor
> Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: Re: [c
p...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 7:36 AM
To: Andrus, Brian Contractor
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] failing to respond to cache pressure
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
wrote:
> Both client and server are Jewel 10.2.0
So the fuse
On 16 May 2016 16:36, "John Spray" wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
> wrote:
> > Both client and server are Jewel 10.2.0
>
> So the fuse client, correct? If you are up for investigating further,
> with potential client bugs (or performance issues) it is often
nt: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:28 AM
To: Andrus, Brian Contractor
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] failing to respond to cache pressure
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
wrote:
So this ‘production ready’ CephFS for jewel seems a little not quite….
Curren
hether
you're seeing expected performance or you're seeing the outcome of a
bug.
John
>
>
> Brian Andrus
> ITACS/Research Computing
> Naval Postgraduate School
> Monterey, California
> voice: 831-656-6238
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
ailto:jsp...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 2:28 AM
To: Andrus, Brian Contractor
Cc: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: Re: [ceph-users] failing to respond to cache pressure
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
wrote:
> So this ‘production ready’ CephFS f
The terminology we're using to describe CephFS in Jewel is "stable" as
opposed to production ready.
Thanks,
Brett
On Monday, May 16, 2016, John Spray wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
> > wrote:
> > So this ‘production ready’ CephFS for jewel seems a little not
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Andrus, Brian Contractor
wrote:
> So this ‘production ready’ CephFS for jewel seems a little not quite….
>
>
>
> Currently I have a single system mounting CephFS and merely scp-ing data to
> it.
>
> The CephFS mount has 168 TB used, 345 TB / 514 TB avail.
>
>
>
> E
On 05/05/2015 18:17, Lincoln Bryant wrote:
Hello all,
I'm seeing some warnings regarding trimming and cache pressure. We're running
0.94.1 on our cluster, with erasure coding + cache tiering backing our CephFS.
health HEALTH_WARN
mds0: Behind on trimming (250/30)
23 matches
Mail list logo
