- ceph-users - lists.ceph.io

Thread::try_create(): pthread_create failed
by 展荣臻（信泰） 02 Jun '20

02 Jun '20

Hi all, We have a hammer ceph cluster with 3 monitor,324 osds. OSD daemon and kvm is collocated on node; The ceph cluster are runing 2 years.Recently we added ~700 osds to the cluster,as process: 1.ceph osd create 2. mkdir -p /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-$osd 3. mkfs.xfs -f /dev/$disk 4. mount -o inode64,notime /dev/$disk /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-$osd 5. ceph-osd -i 0 --mkfs --mkkey 6.ceph auth add osd.$osd osd 'allow *' mon 'allow profile osd' -i /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-$osd/keyring 7.ceph osd crush create-or-move $osd host=kvm101 root=default Mabe we do that requently.After add 122 osds, osd.1-osd.8 failed 2020-05-14 16:48:29.881021 7f6727fb9700 -1 common/Thread.cc: In function 'void Thread::create(size_t)' thread 7f6727fb9700 time 2020-05-14 16:48:29.870051 common/Thread.cc: 129: FAILED assert(ret == 0) ceph version 0.94.5 (9764da52395923e0b32908d83a9f7304401fee43) 1: (ceph::__ceph_assert_fail(char const*, char const*, int, char const*)+0x85) [0xbc8b55] 2: (Thread::create(unsigned long)+0x8a) [0xbac50a] 3: (Pipe::accept()+0x37fb) [0xca6c3b] 4: (Pipe::reader()+0x1a0f) [0xcaa75f] 5: (Pipe::Reader::entry()+0xd) [0xcb351d] 6: (()+0x7dc5) [0x7f67a45ebdc5] 7: (clone()+0x6d) [0x7f67a30cc1cd] NOTE: a copy of the executable, or `objdump -rdS <executable>` is needed to interpret this. ulimit -u 2061600 open files 32768 Does anyone know what's going on? Why create thread faild?

1 0

Deploy Ceph on the secondary datacenter for DR
by Nghia Viet Tran 02 Jun '20

02 Jun '20

Hi everyone, Currently, our client application and Ceph cluster are running on the primary datacenter. We’re planning to deploy Ceph on the secondary datacenter for DR. The secondary datacenter is in the standby mode. If something went wrong with the primary datacenter, the secondary datacenter will take over. The possible way would work in this case is that adding hosts from the secondary datacenter into the existed Ceph cluster in the primary datacenter. By this way, it would add more latency for client requests since client from primary datacenter might connects to OSD hosts in the secondary datacenter) Are there any special configurations in Ceph that fulfill this requirement? [cid:image001.png@01D6380A.599C1D00] I truly appreciate any comments! Nghia.

2 2

Ceph Orchestrator 2020-06-01 Meeting recording
by Mike Perez 02 Jun '20

02 Jun '20

Hi everyone, Our Ceph Orchestrator meeting recording for 2020-06-01 is now available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oGb86RNPRs&feature=youtu.be -- Mike Perez He/Him Ceph Community Manager Red Hat Los Angeles <https://www.redhat.com> thingee(a)redhat.com <mailto:thingee@redhat.com> M: 1-951-572-2633 <tel:1-951-572-2633> IM: IRC Freenode/OFTC: thingee 494C 5D25 2968 D361 65FB 3829 94BC D781 ADA8 8AEA @Thingee <https://twitter.com/thingee> <https://www.redhat.com> <https://redhat.com/summit>

1 0

Using Ceph-ansible for a luminous -> nautilus upgrade?
by Matthew Vernon 01 Jun '20

01 Jun '20

Hi, For previous Ceph version upgrades, we've used the rolling_upgrade playbook from Ceph-ansible - for example, the stable-3.0 branch supports both Jewel and Luminous, so we used it to migrate our clusters from Jewel to Luminous. As I understand it, upgrading direct from Luminous to Nautilus is a supported operation. But there is no Ceph-ansible release that supports both versions. Indeed, stable-4.0 supports Nautilus but no other releases. Is the expected process to use stable-4.0 for the upgrade, or do we have to do the upgrade by hand and only then update our version of ceph-ansible? Thanks, Matthew -- The Wellcome Sanger Institute is operated by Genome Research Limited, a charity registered in England with number 1021457 and a company registered in England with number 2742969, whose registered office is 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE.

2 1

Cache pools at or near target size but no evict happen
by icy chan 01 Jun '20

01 Jun '20

Hi, I had configured a cache tier with max object counts 500k. But no evict happens when the object counts hit the configured maximum. Anyone experienced this issue? What should I do? $ ceph health detail HEALTH_WARN 1 cache pools at or near target size CACHE_POOL_NEAR_FULL 1 cache pools at or near target size cache pool 'cached-hdd-cache' with 887.11k objects at/near target max 500k objects $ ceph df | grep -e "POOL\|cached-hdd" POOLS: POOL ID STORED OBJECTS USED %USED MAX AVAIL cached-hdd 24 1.4 TiB 1.52M 1.4 TiB 0.60 78 TiB cached-hdd-cache 25 842 GiB 887.14k 842 GiB 15.97 1.4 TiB $ ceph osd pool get cached-hdd-cache all size: 3 min_size: 1 pg_num: 128 pgp_num: 128 crush_rule: nvme-repl-rule hashpspool: true nodelete: false nopgchange: false nosizechange: false write_fadvise_dontneed: false noscrub: false nodeep-scrub: false hit_set_type: bloom hit_set_period: 1200 hit_set_count: 4 hit_set_fpp: 0.05 use_gmt_hitset: 1 target_max_objects: 500000 target_max_bytes: 1099511627776 cache_target_dirty_ratio: 0 cache_target_dirty_high_ratio: 0.7 cache_target_full_ratio: 0.9 cache_min_flush_age: 0 cache_min_evict_age: 0 min_read_recency_for_promote: 1 min_write_recency_for_promote: 1 fast_read: 0 hit_set_grade_decay_rate: 20 hit_set_search_last_n: 1 pg_autoscale_mode: warn Regs, Icy

2 4

cephfs - modifying the ceph.file.layout of existing files
by Andrej Filipcic 31 May '20

31 May '20

Hi, I have two directories, cache_fast and cache_slow, and I would like to move the least used files from fast to slow, aka, user side tiering. cache_fast is pinned to fast_data ssd pool, while cache_slow to hdd cephfs_data pool. $ getfattr -n ceph.dir.layout /ceph/grid/cache_fast getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: ceph/grid/cache_fast ceph.dir.layout="stripe_unit=4194304 stripe_count=1 object_size=4194304 pool=fast_data" $ getfattr -n ceph.dir.layout /ceph/grid/cache_slow getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: ceph/grid/cache_slow ceph.dir.layout="stripe_unit=4194304 stripe_count=1 object_size=4194304 pool=cephfs_data" "mv" from cache_fast dir to cache_slow dir only renames the file in mds, but does not involve migration to a different pool and changing the file layout. The only option I see at this point is to "cp" the file to a new dir and removing it from the old one, but this would involve client side operations and can be very slow. Is there any better way, that would work ceph server side? Best regards, Andrej -- _____________________________________________________________ prof. dr. Andrej Filipcic, E-mail: Andrej.Filipcic(a)ijs.si Department of Experimental High Energy Physics - F9 Jozef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P.o.Box 3000 SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia Tel.: +386-1-477-3674 Fax: +386-1-425-7074 -------------------------------------------------------------

2 3

CEPH daemons crashed continously
by Mosharaf Hossain 31 May '20

31 May '20

I have build CEPH Cluster using "ceph version 14.2.8 nautilus". We observe continuous crash of "MON & MGR" service and healing automatically and the following error has been generated for MON service. Though the problem heals automatically but we need to know the reason of the problem. "utsname_hostname": "mon1", "assert_msg": "/build/ceph-14.2.8/src/common/ceph_time.h: In function 'ceph::time_detail::timespan ceph::to_timespan(ceph::time_detail::signedspan)' thread 7fbee0e3c700 time 2020-05-29 05:51:40.385068\n/build/ceph-14.2.8/src/common/ceph_time.h: 485: FAILED ceph_assert(z >= signedspan::zero())\n", "crash_id": "2020-05-28_23:51:40.391577Z_9fcf058c-d03a-41a2-91bb-293f0a7763bd", "assert_func": "ceph::time_detail::timespan ceph::to_timespan(ceph::time_detail::signedspan)", "ceph_version": "14.2.8" } -- Regards, *Mosharaf Hossain* Product Development IT Division Bangladesh Export Import IT Division (BEXIMCO)

1 0

Re: RGW orphans search
by Andrei Mikhailovsky 31 May '20

31 May '20

Hi Manuel, Thanks for the tip. Do you know if the latest code has this bug fixed? I was planning to upgrade to the latest major. Cheers ----- Original Message ----- > From: "EDH" <mriosfer(a)easydatahost.com> > To: "Andrei Mikhailovsky" <andrei(a)arhont.com>, "ceph-users" <ceph-users(a)ceph.io> > Sent: Saturday, 30 May, 2020 14:45:44 > Subject: RE: RGW orphans search > Hi Andrei, > > Orphans find code is not running. Will be deprecated in next reléase maybe > 14.2.10 > > Check: https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/radosgw/orphans/ > > Stop progress is bugged. > > You got the same issue than us, multiparts are not being clean due a sharding > bugs. > > Or fast solution for recover 100TB , s3cmd sync to a other bucket and them > delete the old bucket. > > Not transparent at all but Works. > > Other recomendation: disable Dynamic shard and put a fixed shard number at your > config. > > Regards > Manuel > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Andrei Mikhailovsky <andrei(a)arhont.com> > Enviado el: sábado, 30 de mayo de 2020 13:12 > Para: ceph-users <ceph-users(a)ceph.io> > Asunto: [ceph-users] RGW orphans search > > Hello, > > I am trying to clean up some wasted space (about 1/3 of used space in the rados > pool is currently unaccounted for including the replication level). I've > started the search command 20 days ago ( radosgw-admin orphans find > --pool=.rgw.buckets --job-id=ophans_clean1 --yes-i-really-mean-it ) and it's > still showing me the same thing: > > [ > { > "orphan_search_state": { > "info": { > "orphan_search_info": { > "job_name": "ophans_clean1", > "pool": ".rgw.buckets", > "num_shards": 64, > "start_time": "2020-05-10 21:39:28.913405Z" > } > }, > "stage": { > "orphan_search_stage": { > "search_stage": "iterate_bucket_index", > "shard": 0, > "marker": "" > } > } > } > } > ] > > > The output of the command keeps showing this (hundreds of thousands of lines): > > storing 1 entries at orphan.scan.ophans_clean1.linked.60 > > The total size of the pool is around 30TB and the buckets usage is just under > 10TB. The replica is 2. The activity on the cluster has spiked up since I've > started the command (currently seeing between 10-20K iops compared to a typical > 2-5k iops). > > Has anyone experienced this behaviour? It seems like the command should have > finished by now with only 30TB of used up space. I am running 13.2.10-1xenial > version of ceph. > > Cheers > > Andrei > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to > ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io

1 0

Re: [ceph-users]: Ceph Nautius not working after setting MTU 9000
by Dave Hall 30 May '20

30 May '20

Hello. A few days ago I offered to share the notes I've compiled on network tuning. Right now it's a Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nB5fzIeSgQF0ti_WN-tXhXAlDh8_f8XF9GhU7J1… I've set it up to allow comments and I'd be glad for questions and feedback. If Google Docs not an acceptable format I'll try to put it up somewhere as HTML or Wiki. Disclosure: some sections were copied verbatim from other sources. Regarding the current discussion about iperf, the likely bottleneck is buffering. There is a per-NIC output queue set with 'ip link' and a per CPU core input queue set with 'sysctl'. Both should be set to some multiple of the frame size based on calculations related to link speed and latency. Jumping from 1500 to 9000 could negatively impact performance because one buffer or the other might be 1500 bytes short of a low multiple of 9000. It would be interesting to see the iperf tests repeated with corresponding buffer sizing. I will perform this experiment as soon as I complete some day-job tasks. -Dave Dave Hall Binghamton University kdhall(a)binghamton.edu 607-760-2328 (Cell) 607-777-4641 (Office) On 5/27/2020 6:51 AM, EDH - Manuel Rios wrote: > Anyone can share their table with other MTU values? > > Also interested into Switch CPU load > > KR, > Manuel > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Marc Roos <M.Roos(a)f1-outsourcing.eu> > Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de mayo de 2020 12:01 > Para: chris.palmer <chris.palmer(a)pobox.com>; paul.emmerich <paul.emmerich(a)croit.io> > CC: amudhan83 <amudhan83(a)gmail.com>; anthony.datri <anthony.datri(a)gmail.com>; ceph-users <ceph-users(a)ceph.io>; doustar <doustar(a)rayanexon.ir>; kdhall <kdhall(a)binghamton.edu>; sstkadu <sstkadu(a)gmail.com> > Asunto: [ceph-users] Re: [External Email] Re: Ceph Nautius not working after setting MTU 9000 > > > Interesting table. I have this on a production cluster 10gbit at a > datacenter (obviously doing not that much). > > > [@]# iperf3 -c 10.0.0.13 -P 1 -M 9000 > Connecting to host 10.0.0.13, port 5201 > [ 4] local 10.0.0.14 port 52788 connected to 10.0.0.13 port 5201 > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr Cwnd > [ 4] 0.00-1.00 sec 1.14 GBytes 9.77 Gbits/sec 0 690 KBytes > [ 4] 1.00-2.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.90 Gbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes > [ 4] 2.00-3.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.88 Gbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes > [ 4] 3.00-4.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.88 Gbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes > [ 4] 4.00-5.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.88 Gbits/sec 0 1.08 MBytes > [ 4] 5.00-6.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.90 Gbits/sec 0 1.21 MBytes > [ 4] 6.00-7.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.89 Gbits/sec 0 1.21 MBytes > [ 4] 7.00-8.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.88 Gbits/sec 0 1.21 MBytes > [ 4] 8.00-9.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.89 Gbits/sec 0 1.21 MBytes > [ 4] 9.00-10.00 sec 1.15 GBytes 9.89 Gbits/sec 0 1.21 MBytes > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth Retr > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 11.5 GBytes 9.87 Gbits/sec 0 > sender > [ 4] 0.00-10.00 sec 11.5 GBytes 9.87 Gbits/sec > receiver > > > -----Original Message----- > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: [External Email] Re: Ceph Nautius not > working after setting MTU 9000 > > To elaborate on some aspects that have been mentioned already and add > some others:: > > > * Test using iperf3. > > * Don't try to use jumbos on networks where you don't have complete > control over every host. This usually includes the main ceph network. > It's just too much grief. You can consider using it for limited-access > networks (e.g. ceph cluster network, hypervisor migration network, etc) > where you know every switch & host is tuned correctly. (This works even > when those nets share a vlan trunk with non-jumbo vlans - just set the > max value on the trunk itself, and individual values on each vlan.) > > * If you are pinging make sure it doesn't fragment otherwise you > will get misleading results: e.g. ping -M do -s 9000 x.x.x.x > * Do not assume that 9000 is the best value. It depends on your > NICs, your switch, kernel/device parameters, etc. Try different values > (using iperf3). As an example the results below are using a small cheap > Mikrotek 10G switch and HPE 10G NICs. It highlights how in this > configuration 9000 is worse than 1500, but that 5139 is optimal yet 5140 > is worst. The same pattern (obviously with different values) was > apparent when multiple tests were run concurrently. Always test your own > network in a controlled manner. And of course if you introduce anything > different later on, test again. With enterprise-grade kit this might not > be so common, but always test if you fiddle. > > > MTU Gbps (actual data transfer values using iperf3) - one particular > configuration only > > 9600 8.91 (max value) > 9000 8.91 > 8000 8.91 > 7000 8.91 > 6000 8.91 > 5500 8.17 > 5200 7.71 > 5150 7.64 > 5140 7.62 > 5139 9.81 (optimal) > 5138 9.81 > 5137 9.81 > 5135 9.81 > 5130 9.81 > 5120 9.81 > 5100 9.81 > 5000 9.81 > 4000 9.76 > 3000 9.68 > 2000 9.28 > 1500 9.37 (default) > > > Whether any of this will make a tangible difference for ceph is moot. I > just spend a little time getting the network stack correct as above, > then leave it. That way I know I am probably getting some benefit, and > not doing any harm. If you blindly change things you may well do harm > that can manifest itself in all sorts of ways outside of Ceph. Getting > some test results for this using Ceph will be easy; getting MEANINGFUL > results that way will be hard. > > > Chris > > > On 27/05/2020 09:25, Marc Roos wrote: > > > > > I would not call a ceph page, a random tuning tip. At least I hope > they > are not. NVMe-only with 100Gbit is not really a standard setup. I > assume > with such setup you have the luxury to not notice many > optimizations. > > What I mostly read is that changing to mtu 9000 will allow you to > better > saturate the 10Gbit adapter, and I expect this to show on a low end > busy > cluster. Don't you have any test results of such a setup? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: [External Email] Re: Ceph Nautius not > > working after setting MTU 9000 > > Don't optimize stuff without benchmarking *before and after*, don't > > apply random tuning tipps from the Internet without benchmarking > them. > > My experience with Jumbo frames: 3% performance. On a NVMe-only > setup > with 100 Gbit/s network. > > Paul > > > -- > Paul Emmerich > > Looking for help with your Ceph cluster? Contact us at > https://croit.io > > croit GmbH > Freseniusstr. 31h > 81247 München > www.croit.io > Tel: +49 89 1896585 90 > > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:02 PM Marc Roos > <M.Roos(a)f1-outsourcing.eu> <mailto:M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> > wrote: > > > > > Look what I have found!!! :) > https://ceph.com/geen-categorie/ceph-loves-jumbo-frames/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anthony D'Atri [mailto:anthony.datri@gmail.com] > Sent: maandag 25 mei 2020 22:12 > To: Marc Roos > Cc: kdhall; martin.verges; sstkadu; amudhan83; ceph-users; > doustar > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: [External Email] Re: Ceph > Nautius not > > working after setting MTU 9000 > > Quick and easy depends on your network infrastructure. > Sometimes > it is > difficult or impossible to retrofit a live cluster without > disruption. > > > > On May 25, 2020, at 1:03 AM, Marc Roos > <M.Roos(a)f1-outsourcing.eu> <mailto:M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu> > > wrote: > > > > > > I am interested. I am always setting mtu to 9000. To be > honest I > > cannot imagine there is no optimization since you have less > interrupt > > requests, and you are able x times as much data. Every time > there > > > something written about optimizing the first thing mention > is > changing > > > to the mtu 9000. Because it is quick and easy win. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Hall [mailto:kdhall@binghamton.edu] > > Sent: maandag 25 mei 2020 5:11 > > To: Martin Verges; Suresh Rama > > Cc: Amudhan P; Khodayar Doustar; ceph-users > > Subject: [ceph-users] Re: [External Email] Re: Ceph Nautius > not > > working after setting MTU 9000 > > > > All, > > > > Regarding Martin's observations about Jumbo Frames.... > > > > I have recently been gathering some notes from various > internet > > sources regarding Linux network performance, and Linux > performance in > > general, to be applied to a Ceph cluster I manage but also > to the > rest > > > of the Linux server farm I'm responsible for. > > > > In short, enabling Jumbo Frames without also tuning a number > of > other > > kernel and NIC attributes will not provide the performance > increases > > we'd like to see. I have not yet had a chance to go through > the > rest > > of the testing I'd like to do, but I can confirm (via > iperf3) > that > > only enabling Jumbo Frames didn't make a significant > difference. > > > > Some of the other attributes I'm referring to are incoming > and > > outgoing buffer sizes at the NIC, IP, and TCP levels, > interrupt > > coalescing, NIC offload functions that should or shouldn't > be > turned > > on, packet queuing disciplines (tc), the best choice of TCP > slow-start > > > algorithms, and other TCP features and attributes. > > > > The most off-beat item I saw was something about adding > IPTABLES > rules > > > to bypass CONNTRACK table lookups. > > > > In order to do anything meaningful to assess the effect of > all of > > > these settings I'd like to figure out how to set them all > via > Ansible > > - so more to learn before I can give opinions. > > > > --> If anybody has added this type of configuration to Ceph > > Ansible, > > I'd be glad for some pointers. > > > > I have started to compile a document containing my notes. > It's > rough, > > > but I'd be glad to share if anybody is interested. > > > > -Dave > > > > Dave Hall > > Binghamton University > > > >> On 5/24/2020 12:29 PM, Martin Verges wrote: > >> > >> Just save yourself the trouble. You won't have any real > benefit > from > > MTU > >> 9000. It has some smallish, but it is not worth the effort, > > problems, > > and > >> loss of reliability for most environments. > >> Try it yourself and do some benchmarks, especially with > your > regular > >> workload on the cluster (not the maximum peak performance), > then > drop > > the > >> MTU to default ;). > >> > >> Please if anyone has other real world benchmarks showing > huge > > differences > >> in regular Ceph clusters, please feel free to post it here. > >> > >> -- > >> Martin Verges > >> Managing director > >> > >> Mobile: +49 174 9335695 > >> E-Mail: martin.verges(a)croit.io > >> Chat: https://t.me/MartinVerges > >> > >> croit GmbH, Freseniusstr. 31h, 81247 Munich > >> CEO: Martin Verges - VAT-ID: DE310638492 Com. register: > Amtsgericht > >> Munich HRB 231263 > >> > >> Web: https://croit.io > >> YouTube: https://goo.gl/PGE1Bx > >> > >> > >>> Am So., 24. Mai 2020 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Suresh Rama > >> <sstkadu(a)gmail.com> <mailto:sstkadu@gmail.com> : > >> > >>> Ping with 9000 MTU won't get response as I said and it > should > be > > 8972. Glad > >>> it is working but you should know what happened to avoid > this > issue > > later. > >>> > >>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020, 3:04 AM Amudhan P > <amudhan83(a)gmail.com> <mailto:amudhan83@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> No, ping with MTU size 9000 didn't work. > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:26 PM Khodayar Doustar > > <doustar(a)rayanexon.ir> <mailto:doustar@rayanexon.ir> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Does your ping work or not? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 6:53 AM Amudhan P > <amudhan83(a)gmail.com> <mailto:amudhan83@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I have set setting on the switch side also. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat 23 May, 2020, 6:47 PM Khodayar Doustar, > > <doustar(a)rayanexon.ir> <mailto:doustar@rayanexon.ir> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Problem should be with network. When you change MTU it > > should be > >>>> changed > >>>>>>> all over the network, any single hup on your network > should > > >>>>>>> speak > > and > >>>>>>> accept 9000 MTU packets. you can check it on your > hosts > with > >>> "ifconfig" > >>>>>>> command and there is also equivalent commands for > other > >>>> network/security > >>>>>>> devices. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you have just one node which it not correctly > configured > for > > MTU > >>>> 9000 > >>>>>>> it wouldn't work. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 2:30 PM sinan(a)turka.nl > <sinan(a)turka.nl> <mailto:sinan@turka.nl> > >>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Can the servers/nodes ping eachother using large > packet > sizes? > >>>>>>>> I > >>> guess > >>>>>>>> not. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sinan Polat > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Op 23 mei 2020 om 14:21 heeft Amudhan P > <amudhan83(a)gmail.com> <mailto:amudhan83@gmail.com> > > het > >>>>>>>> volgende geschreven: > >>>>>>>>> In OSD logs "heartbeat_check: no reply from OSD" > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:44 PM Amudhan P > > <amudhan83(a)gmail.com> <mailto:amudhan83@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I have set Network switch with MTU size 9000 and > also in > my > >>> netplan > >>>>>>>>>> configuration. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What else needs to be checked? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 3:39 PM Wido den Hollander > < > >>> wido(a)42on.com > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/20 12:02 PM, Amudhan P wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am using ceph Nautilus in Ubuntu 18.04 working > fine > wit > > MTU > >>>> size > >>>>>>>> 1500 > >>>>>>>>>>>> (default) recently i tried to update MTU size to > 9000. > >>>>>>>>>>>> After setting Jumbo frame running ceph -s is > timing > out. > >>>>>>>>>>> Ceph can run just fine with an MTU of 9000. But > there > is > >>> probably > >>>>>>>>>>> something else wrong on the network which is > causing > this. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Check the Jumbo Frames settings on all the > switches as > well > > to > >>>> make > >>>>>>>> sure > >>>>>>>>>>> they forward all the packets. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> This is definitely not a Ceph issue. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Wido > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> regards > >>>>>>>>>>>> Amudhan P > >>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > >>>>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe send an email to > ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > > >>>>>>>>>>> send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > >>>>>>>>> send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > >>>>>>>> send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>>>>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > send > >>>> an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > send an > > >>> email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To > unsubscribe > send an > >> email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe > send > an > > email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe > send > an > > email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io

3 4

RGW orphans search
by Andrei Mikhailovsky 30 May '20

30 May '20

Hello, I am trying to clean up some wasted space (about 1/3 of used space in the rados pool is currently unaccounted for including the replication level). I've started the search command 20 days ago ( radosgw-admin orphans find --pool=.rgw.buckets --job-id=ophans_clean1 --yes-i-really-mean-it ) and it's still showing me the same thing: [ { "orphan_search_state": { "info": { "orphan_search_info": { "job_name": "ophans_clean1", "pool": ".rgw.buckets", "num_shards": 64, "start_time": "2020-05-10 21:39:28.913405Z" } }, "stage": { "orphan_search_stage": { "search_stage": "iterate_bucket_index", "shard": 0, "marker": "" } } } } ] The output of the command keeps showing this (hundreds of thousands of lines): storing 1 entries at orphan.scan.ophans_clean1.linked.60 The total size of the pool is around 30TB and the buckets usage is just under 10TB. The replica is 2. The activity on the cluster has spiked up since I've started the command (currently seeing between 10-20K iops compared to a typical 2-5k iops). Has anyone experienced this behaviour? It seems like the command should have finished by now with only 30TB of used up space. I am running 13.2.10-1xenial version of ceph. Cheers Andrei

2 1