Hi all,
I just had created a ceph cluster to use cephfs. When i create the a ceph
fs pool i get the filesystem below error.
# ceph osd pool create cephfs_data 128
pool 'cephfs_data' created
# ceph osd pool create cephfs_metadata 128
pool 'cephfs_metadata' created
# ceph fs new cephfs cephfs_metadata cephfs_data
new fs with metadata pool 6 and data pool 5
# ceph -s
cluster:
id: 1c27def45-f0f9-494d-sfke-eb4323432fd
health: HEALTH_ERR
1 filesystem is offline
1 filesystem is online with fewer MDS than max_mds
services:
mon: 2 daemons, quorum ceph-mon01,ceph-mon02
mgr: ceph-adm01(active)
mds: cephfs-0/0/1 up
osd: 12 osds: 12 up, 12 in
data:
pools: 2 pools, 256 pgs
objects: 0 objects, 0 B
usage: 12 GiB used, 588 GiB / 600 GiB avail
pgs: 256 active+clean
but when i check the max_mds for the ceph fs it says 1
# ceph fs get cephfs | grep max_mds
max_mds 1
Let anyone know what am i missing here? Any inputs is much appreciated.
Regards,
Ram
Ceph-explorer..
Hi,
We are running a ceph cluster on Ubuntu 18.04 machines with ceph 14.2.4.
Our cephfs clients are using the kernel module and we have noticed that
some of them are sometimes (at least once) hanging after an MDS restart.
The only way to resolve this is to unmount and remount the mountpoint,
or reboot the machine if unmounting is not possible.
After some investigation, the problem seems to be that the MDS denies
reconnect attempts from some clients during restart even though the
reconnect interval is not yet reached. In particular, I see the following
log entries. Note that there are supposedly 9 sessions. 9 clients
reconnect (one client has two mountpoints) and then two more clients
reconnect after the MDS already logged "reconnect_done". These two
clients were hanging after the event. The kernel log of one of them is
shown below too.
Running `ceph tell mds.0 client ls` after the clients have been
rebooted/remounted also shows 11 clients instead of 9.
Do you have any ideas what is wrong here and how it could be fixed? I'm
guessing that the issue is that the MDS apparently has an incorrect
session count and stops the reconnect process to soon. Is this indeed a
bug and if so, do you know what is broken?
Regardless, I also think that the kernel should be able to deal with a
denied reconnect and that it should try again later. Yet, even after
10 minutes, the kernel does not attempt to reconnect. Is this a known
issue or maybe fixed in newer kernels? If not, is there a chance to get
this fixed?
Thanks,
Florian
MDS log:
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 1 mds.0.server reconnect_clients -- 9 sessions
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.24197043 v1:10.1.4.203:0/990008521 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.30487144 v1:10.1.4.146:0/483747473 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.21019865 v1:10.1.7.22:0/3752632657 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.21020717 v1:10.1.7.115:0/2841046616 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.24171153 v1:10.1.7.243:0/1127767158 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.23978093 v1:10.1.4.71:0/824226283 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.24209569 v1:10.1.4.157:0/1271865906 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.20190930 v1:10.1.4.240:0/3195698606 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [DBG] : reconnect by client.20190912 v1:10.1.4.146:0/852604154 after 0
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.479 7f9fdde99700 1 mds.0.59 reconnect_done
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fdde99700 1 mds.0.server no longer in reconnect state, ignoring reconnect, sending close
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [INF] : denied reconnect attempt (mds is up:reconnect) from client.24167394 v1:10.1.67.49:0/1483641729 after 0.00400002 (allowed interval 45)
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fe1087700 0 --1- [v2:10.1.4.203:6800/806949107,v1:10.1.4.203:6801/806949107] >> v1:10.1.67.49:0/1483641729 conn(0x55af50053f80 0x55af50140800 :6801 s=OPENED pgs=21 cs=1 l=0).fault server, going to standby
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fdde99700 1 mds.0.server no longer in reconnect state, ignoring reconnect, sending close
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fdde99700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [INF] : denied reconnect attempt (mds is up:reconnect) from client.30586072 v1:10.1.67.140:0/3664284158 after 0.00400002 (allowed interval 45)
> 2019-09-26 16:08:27.483 7f9fe1888700 0 --1- [v2:10.1.4.203:6800/806949107,v1:10.1.4.203:6801/806949107] >> v1:10.1.67.140:0/3664284158 conn(0x55af50055600 0x55af50143000 :6801 s=OPENED pgs=8 cs=1 l=0).fault server, going to standby
Hanging client (10.1.67.49) kernel log:
> 2019-09-26T16:08:27.481676+02:00 hostnamefoo kernel: [708596.227148] ceph: mds0 reconnect start
> 2019-09-26T16:08:27.488943+02:00 hostnamefoo kernel: [708596.233145] ceph: mds0 reconnect denied
> 2019-09-26T16:16:17.541041+02:00 hostnamefoo kernel: [709066.287601] libceph: mds0 10.1.4.203:6801 socket closed (con state NEGOTIATING)
> 2019-09-26T16:16:18.068934+02:00 hostnamefoo kernel: [709066.813064] ceph: mds0 rejected session
> 2019-09-26T16:16:18.068955+02:00 hostnamefoo kernel: [709066.814843] ceph: get_quota_realm: ino (10000000008.fffffffffffffffe) null i_snap_realm
Hi,
I am running a nice ceph (proxmox 4 / debian-8 / ceph 0.94.3) cluster on
3 nodes (supermicro X8DTT-HIBQF), 2 OSD each (2TB SATA harddisks),
interconnected via Infiniband 40.
Problem is that the ceph performance is quite bad (approx. 30MiB/s
reading, 3-4 MiB/s writing ), so I thought about plugging into each node
a PCIe to NVMe/M.2 adapter and install SSD harddisks. The idea is to
have a faster ceph storage and also some storage extension.
The question is now which SSDs I should use. If I understand it right,
not every SSD is suitable for ceph, as is denoted at the links below:
https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2014/10/10/ceph-how-to-test-if-your-ssd-i…
or here:
https://www.proxmox.com/en/downloads/item/proxmox-ve-ceph-benchmark
In the first link, the Samsung SSD 950 PRO 512GB NVMe is listed as a
fast SSD for ceph. As the 950 is not available anymore, I ordered a
Samsung 970 1TB for testing, unfortunately, the "EVO" instead of PRO.
Before equipping all nodes with these SSDs, I did some tests with "fio"
as recommended, e.g. like this:
fio --filename=/dev/DEVICE --direct=1 --sync=1 --rw=write --bs=4k
--numjobs=1 --iodepth=1 --runtime=60 --time_based --group_reporting
--name=journal-test
The results are as the following:
-----------------------
1) Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter
Jobs: 1:
read : io=26706MB, bw=445MiB/s, iops=113945, runt= 60001msec
write: io=252576KB, bw=4.1MiB/s, iops=1052, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4:
read : io=21805MB, bw=432.7MiB/s, iops=93034, runt= 60001msec
write: io=422204KB, bw=6.8MiB/s, iops=1759, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10:
read : io=26921MB, bw=448MiB/s, iops=114859, runt= 60001msec
write: io=435644KB, bw=7MiB/s, iops=1815, runt= 60004msec
-----------------------
So the read speed is impressive, but the write speed is really bad.
Therefore I ordered the Samsung 970 PRO (1TB) as it has faster NAND
chips (MLC instead of TLC). The results are, however even worse for writing:
-----------------------
Samsung 970 PRO NVMe M.2 mit PCIe Adapter
Jobs: 1:
read : io=15570MB, bw=259.4MiB/s, iops=66430, runt= 60001msec
write: io=199436KB, bw=3.2MiB/s, iops=830, runt= 60001msec
Jobs: 4:
read : io=48982MB, bw=816.3MiB/s, iops=208986, runt= 60001msec
write: io=327800KB, bw=5.3MiB/s, iops=1365, runt= 60002msec
Jobs: 10:
read : io=91753MB, bw=1529.3MiB/s, iops=391474, runt= 60001msec
write: io=343368KB, bw=5.6MiB/s, iops=1430, runt= 60005msec
-----------------------
I did some research and found out, that the "--sync" flag sets the flag
"O_DSYNC" which seems to disable the SSD cache which leads to these
horrid write speeds.
It seems that this relates to the fact that the write cache is only not
disabled for SSDs which implement some kind of battery buffer that
guarantees a data flush to the flash in case of a powerloss.
However, It seems impossible to find out which SSDs do have this
powerloss protection, moreover, these enterprise SSDs are crazy
expensive compared to the SSDs above - moreover it's unclear if
powerloss protection is even available in the NVMe form factor. So
building a 1 or 2 TB cluster seems not really affordable/viable.
So, can please anyone give me hints what to do? Is it possible to ensure
that the write cache is not disabled in some way (my server is situated
in a data center, so there will probably never be loss of power).
Or is the link above already outdated as newer ceph releases somehow
deal with this problem? Or maybe a later Debian release (10) will handle
the O_DSYNC flag differently?
Perhaps I should simply invest in faster (and bigger) harddisks and
forget the SSD-cluster idea?
Thank you in advance for any help,
Best Regards,
Hermann
--
hermann(a)qwer.tk
PGP/GPG: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
hi,every one,
my ceph version 12.2.12，I want to set require min compat client
luminous,I use command
#ceph osd set-require-min-compat-client luminous
but ceph report:Error EPERM: cannot set require_min_compat_client to
luminous: 4 connected client(s) look like jewel (missing
0xa00000000200000); add --yes-i-really-mean-it to do it anyway
[root@node-1 ~]# ceph features
{
"mon": {
"group": {
"features": "0x3ffddff8eeacfffb",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 3
}
},
"osd": {
"group": {
"features": "0x3ffddff8eeacfffb",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 15
}
},
"client": {
"group": {
"features": "0x40106b84a842a52",
"release": "jewel",
"num": 4
},
"group": {
"features": "0x3ffddff8eeacfffb",
"release": "luminous",
"num": 168
}
}
}
so,I run command:
[root@node-1 gyt]# ceph osd set-require-min-compat-client luminous
--yes-i-really-mean-it
set require_min_compat_client to luminous
but now,I want to set require min compat client jewel,I use command：
[root@node-1 gyt]# ceph osd set-require-min-compat-client jewel
Error EPERM: osdmap current utilizes features that require luminous;
cannot set require_min_compat_client below that to jewel
what‘s the way we are set luminous chang to jewel？
Hi Folks
We are using Ceph as our storage backend on our 6 Node Proxmox VM Cluster. To Monitor our systems we use Zabbix and i would like to get some Ceph Data into our Zabbix to get some alarms when something goes wrong.
Ceph mgr has a module, "zabbix" that uses "zabbix-sender" to actively send data, but i cannot get the module working. It always responds with "failed to send data"
The network side seems to be fine:
root@vm-2:~# traceroute 192.168.15.253
traceroute to 192.168.15.253 (192.168.15.253), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 192.168.15.253 (192.168.15.253) 0.411 ms 0.402 ms 0.393 ms
root@vm-2:~# nmap -p 10051 192.168.15.253
Starting Nmap 7.70 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2019-09-18 08:40 CEST
Nmap scan report for 192.168.15.253
Host is up (0.00026s latency).
PORT STATE SERVICE
10051/tcp open zabbix-trapper
MAC Address: BA:F5:30:EF:40:EF (Unknown)
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 0.61 seconds
root@vm-2:~# ceph zabbix config-show
{"zabbix_port": 10051, "zabbix_host": "192.168.15.253", "identifier": "VM-2", "zabbix_sender": "/usr/bin/zabbix_sender", "interval": 60}
root@vm-2:~#
But if i try "ceph zabbix send" i get "failed to send data to zabbix" and this show up in the systems journal:
Sep 18 08:41:13 vm-2 ceph-mgr[54445]: 2019-09-18 08:41:13.272 7fe360fe4700 -1 mgr.server reply reply (1) Operation not permitted
The log of ceph-mgr on that machine states:
2019-09-18 08:42:18.188 7fe359fd6700 0 mgr[zabbix] Exception when sending: /usr/bin/zabbix_sender exited non-zero: zabbix_sender [3253392]: DEBUG: answer [{"response":"success","info":"processed: 0; failed: 44; total: 44; seconds spent: 0.000179"}]
2019-09-18 08:43:18.217 7fe359fd6700 0 mgr[zabbix] Exception when sending: /usr/bin/zabbix_sender exited non-zero: zabbix_sender [3253629]: DEBUG: answer [{"response":"success","info":"processed: 0; failed: 44; total: 44; seconds spent: 0.000321"}]
I'm guessing, this could have something to do with user rights. But i have no idea where to start to track this down.
Maybe someone here has a hint?
If more information is needed, i will gladly provide it.
greetings
Ingo
We've run into a problem on our test cluster this afternoon which is running Nautilus (14.2.2). It seems that any time PGs move on the cluster (from marking an OSD down, setting the primary-affinity to 0, or by using the balancer), a large number of the OSDs in the cluster peg the CPU cores they're running on for a while which causes slow requests. From what I can tell it appears to be related to slow peering caused by osd_pg_create() taking a long time.
This was seen on quite a few OSDs while waiting for peering to complete:
# ceph daemon osd.3 ops
{
"ops": [
{
"description": "osd_pg_create(e179061 287.7a:177739 287.9a:177739 287.e2:177739 287.e7:177739 287.f6:177739 287.187:177739 287.1aa:177739 287.216:177739 287.306:177739 287.3e6:177739)",
"initiated_at": "2019-08-27 14:34:46.556413",
"age": 318.25234538000001,
"duration": 318.25241895300002,
"type_data": {
"flag_point": "started",
"events": [
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:34:46.556413",
"event": "initiated"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:34:46.556413",
"event": "header_read"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:34:46.556299",
"event": "throttled"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:34:46.556456",
"event": "all_read"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:12.456901",
"event": "dispatched"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:12.456903",
"event": "wait for new map"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:40:01.292346",
"event": "started"
}
]
}
},
...snip...
{
"description": "osd_pg_create(e179066 287.7a:177739 287.9a:177739 287.e2:177739 287.e7:177739 287.f6:177739 287.187:177739 287.1aa:177739 287.216:177739 287.306:177739 287.3e6:177739)",
"initiated_at": "2019-08-27 14:35:09.908567",
"age": 294.900191001,
"duration": 294.90068416899999,
"type_data": {
"flag_point": "delayed",
"events": [
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:09.908567",
"event": "initiated"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:09.908567",
"event": "header_read"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:09.908520",
"event": "throttled"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:09.908617",
"event": "all_read"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:12.456921",
"event": "dispatched"
},
{
"time": "2019-08-27 14:35:12.456923",
"event": "wait for new map"
}
]
}
}
],
"num_ops": 6
}
That "wait for new map" message made us think something was getting hung up on the monitors, so we restarted them all without any luck.
I'll keep investigating, but so far my google searches aren't pulling anything up so I wanted to see if anyone else is running into this?
Thanks,
Bryan
Hi,
Currently running Mimic 13.2.5.
We had reports this morning of timeouts and failures with PUT and GET
requests to our Ceph RGW cluster. I found these messages in the RGW
log:
RGWReshardLock::lock failed to acquire lock on
bucket_name:bucket_instance ret=-16
NOTICE: resharding operation on bucket index detected, blocking
block_while_resharding ERROR: bucket is still resharding, please retry
Which were preceded by many of these, which I think are normal/expected.
check_bucket_shards: resharding needed: stats.num_objects=6415879
shard max_objects=6400000
Our RGW cluster sits behind haproxy which notified me approx 90
seconds after the first 'resharding needed' message that no backends
were available. It appears this dynamic reshard process caused the
RGWs to lock up for a period of time. Roughly 2 minutes later the
reshard error messages stop and operation returns to normal.
Looking back through previous RGW logs, I see a similar event from
about a week ago, on the same bucket. We have several buckets with
shard counts exceeding 1k (this one only has 128), and much larger
object counts, so clearly this isn't the first time dynamic sharding
has been invoked on this cluster.
Has anyone seen this? I expect it will come up again, and can turn up
debugging if that'll help. Thanks for any assistance!
Josh
Hi,
I am trying to copy the contents of our storage server into a CephFS,
but am experiencing stability issues with my MDSs. The CephFS sits on
top of an erasure-coded pool with 5 MONs, 5 MDSs and a max_mds setting
of two. My Ceph cluster version is Nautilus, the client is Mimic and
uses the kernel module to mount the FS.
The index of filenames to copy is about 23GB and I am using 16 parallel
rsync processes over a 10G link to copy the files over to Ceph. This
works perfectly for a while, but then the MDSs start reporting oversized
caches (between 20 and 50GB, sometimes more) and an inode count between
1 and 4 million. Particularly the Inode count seems quite high to me.
Each rsync job has 25k files to work with, so if all 16 processes open
all their files at the same time, I should not exceed 400k. Even if I
double this number to account for the client's page cache, I should get
nowhere near that number of inodes (a sync flush takes about 1 second).
Then after a few hours, my MDSs start failing with messages like this:
-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!
The standby nodes try to take over, but take forever to become active
and will fail as well eventually.
During my research, I found this related topic:
http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-January/015959.html,
but I tried everything in there from increasing to lowering my cache
size, the number of segments etc. I also played around with the number
of active MDSs and two appears to work the best, whereas one cannot keep
up with the load and three seems to be the worst of all choices.
Do you have any ideas how I can improve the stability of my MDS damons
to handle the load properly? single 10G link is a toy and we could query
the cluster with a lot more requests per second, but it's already
yielding to 16 rsync processes.
Thanks
