On 30.03.2016 12:48, Vasily Averin wrote: > Dear Karl, > > thank you for explanation. > however some details are still not it clear. > > I believe you use simfs containers (otherwise you can do not worry about > PSBM-34244, > using of 113.12 kernels also confirms it) > but it isn't clear how exactly you backup your nodes. > Do you dump whole partition with containers or just copy containers private > areas somehow? > What filesystem you have on partition with containers. > What is backup storage in your case? > > Anyway seems you do not freeze filesystem with containers before backup. > This functionality was broken in RHEL6 kernels quite long time, > and Red Hat fixed it in 2.6.32-504.x and 573.x kernels. > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1506563 > > Probably these fixes affect your testcase. > > I'm not sure of course, > may be it isn't and some other fixes are guilty: > Red Hat added >7000 new patches into 2.6.32-573.x kernels > many our patches was changed during re-base, > and many new patches was added. > There was to many changes between 108.x and 113.x kernels. > > Our tests did not detected significant performance degradation, > but it means nothing, most likely we just did not measured your testcase. > > I do not expect that situation will be changed on 113.21 kernel, > seems we did not fixed similar issues last time. > > Yes, you-re right, our 042stab114.x kernels will be based > on last released RHEL6.7 kernel 2.6.32-573.22.1.el6. > its validation is in progress at present, > and I hope we'll publish it in nearest future.
just FYI: 042stab114.5 is published already https://openvz.org/Download/kernel/rhel6-testing/042stab114.5 > > However I did not found any related bugfixes in new RHEL6 kernels, > and doubt that it helps you. > > Also we're going to make 115.x kernel based on RHEL6 update8 beta kernel > 2.6.32-621.el6, > it have no chances to be released in stable branch but its testing helps us > to speed-up > our rebase to RHEL6.8 release kernel (we expect RHEL6u8 will be released in > end of May). > > The work on 115.x kernel is in progress, and I hope it should be done in next > few days. > > So I would like to propose you following plan: > please check how works 113.21, 114.x and 115.x kernels, (may be it works > already) > if issue will be still present, please reproduce the problem once again, > crash affected host, > create new bug in jira and push me again. I'll send you private link for > vmcore uploading. > Investigation of kernel crash dump file probably allows me to find bottleneck > in your case. > > Thank you, > Vasily Averin > > On 29.03.2016 21:03, Karl Johnson wrote: >> Hi Vasily, >> >> Every weekend I do backups of all CT which take a lot of IO. It >> didn't affect much load average before 108 but as soon as I upgraded >> to 113, load got very high and nodes became sluggish during backups. >> It might be something else but I was looking for feedback if someone >> else had the same issue. I will continue to troubleshoot this issue. >> Meanwhile, I will upgrade them from 113.12 to 113.21 and see how it >> goes even if there's nothing related to this in the changelog. >> >> Thanks for the reply, >> >> Karl >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Vasily Averin <v...@virtuozzo.com >> <mailto:v...@virtuozzo.com>> wrote: >> >> Dear Karl, >> >> no, we know nothing about possible performance degradation between >> 042stab108.x and 042stab113.x kernels. >> High load average and CPU peaks are not a problems per se, >> it can be caused by increased activity on your nodes. >> >> Could you please explain in more details, >> why you believe you have a problem on your nodes? >> >> Thank you, >> Vasily Averin >> >> On 28.03.2016 20:28, Karl Johnson wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > Did anyone notice performance degradation after upgrading vzkernel to >> > 042stab113.X? I’ve been running 042stab108.5 on few nodes for a while >> > with no issue and upgraded to 042stab113.12 few weeks ago to fix an >> > important CVE and rebase to latest rhel6 kernel. >> > >> > Since the upgrade from 108.5 to 113.12, I noticed much higher load >> > average on those upgraded OpenVZ nodes, mostly when IO is heavily >> > used. High CPU peaks are much more frequent. I would be curious to >> > know if someone else has the same issue. I wouldn’t downgrade because >> > of security fix PSBM-34244. >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Karl >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Users mailing list >> > Users@openvz.org <mailto:Users@openvz.org> >> > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@openvz.org <mailto:Users@openvz.org> >> https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@openvz.org >> https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@openvz.org > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
