30 May
2020
30 May
'20
7:35 p.m.
Anthony,
I've amended my document regarding netdev_max_backlog - too big can be
as bad as too small.
Regarding tcp_max_syn_backlog - the kernel documentation says this will
increase automatically with load. I wouldn't touch it unless perhaps -
in an environment like Ceph - I would set it to 90% of an observed
maximum at boot since it's going to get there eventually anyway.
For tcp_max_tw_buckets - according to the kernel docs this exists to
prevent DOS attacks. Increasing it could cause system memory
contention. Not something I'd increase casually, but having this too
high just wastes memory. It really depends on how often the kernel is
forced to destroy sockets before the 2MSL timeout.
(For those unfamiliar with this, the 2MSL timeout is there to allow any
lingering packets to arrive at their destination. Failure to do so
introduces a risk of a late packet getting sent to the wrong TCP
connection. Hard to imagine this happening, but it could.)
-Dave
Dave Hall
Binghamton University
kdhall(a)binghamton.edu
607-760-2328 (Cell)
607-777-4641 (Office)
On 5/29/2020 2:45 PM, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
> I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that happen with QFX5100 switches and
>
> net.core.netdev_max_backlog=250000
> net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog=100000
> net.ipv4.tcp_max_tw_buckets=2000000
>
>
>
>> On May 29, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Dave Hall <kdhall(a)binghamton.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Paul 100%. Going further - there are many more 'knobs to
turn' than just Jumbo Frames, which makes the problem even harder. Changing any one
setting may just move the bottleneck, or possibly introduce instabilities. In the worst
case, one might tune their Linux system so well that it overruns the switch it's
connected to. So then we have to add more knobs in the switch and see what we can do
there, or de-tune Linux to make it play nice with the switch.
>>
>> Just to be sure, I will add a disclaimer at the top of my document to emphasize
before/after benchmarking.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> Dave Hall
>> Binghamton University
>> kdhall(a)binghamton.edu
>> 607-760-2328 (Cell)
>> 607-777-4641 (Office)
>>
>> On 5/29/2020 6:29 AM, Paul Emmerich wrote:
>>> Please do not apply any optimization without benchmarking *before* and
*after* in a somewhat realistic scenario.
>>>
>>> No, iperf is likely not a realistic setup because it will usually be limited
by available network bandwidth which is (should) rarely be maxed out on your actual Ceph
setup.
>>>
>>> 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 <http://www.croit.io>
>>> Tel: +49 89 1896585 90
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:15 AM Dave Hall <kdhall(a)binghamton.edu
<mailto:kdhall@binghamton.edu>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <mailto:kdhall@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
>>> <mailto:M.Roos@f1-outsourcing.eu>>
>>> > Enviado el: miércoles, 27 de mayo de 2020 12:01
>>> > Para: chris.palmer <chris.palmer(a)pobox.com
>>> <mailto:chris.palmer@pobox.com>>; paul.emmerich
>>> <paul.emmerich(a)croit.io <mailto:paul.emmerich@croit.io>>
>>> > CC: amudhan83 <amudhan83(a)gmail.com
>>> <mailto:amudhan83@gmail.com>>; anthony.datri
>>> <anthony.datri(a)gmail.com <mailto:anthony.datri@gmail.com>>;
>>> ceph-users <ceph-users(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>>;
>>> doustar <doustar(a)rayanexon.ir
<mailto:doustar@rayanexon.ir>>;
>>> kdhall <kdhall(a)binghamton.edu
<mailto:kdhall@binghamton.edu>>;
>>> sstkadu <sstkadu(a)gmail.com <mailto:sstkadu@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 <http://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>>
>>> <mailto:M.Roos@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 <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>>
>>> <mailto:M.Roos@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
>>> <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
>>> <mailto:martin.verges@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>>
>>> <mailto:sstkadu@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>>
>>> <mailto:amudhan83@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>> <mailto:doustar@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>>
>>> <mailto:amudhan83@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>> <mailto:doustar@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 <mailto:sinan@turka.nl>
>>> > <sinan(a)turka.nl <mailto:sinan@turka.nl>>
>>> <mailto:sinan@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>>
>>> <mailto:amudhan83@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>> <mailto:amudhan83@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
<mailto:wido@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
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe send
an email to
>>> > ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing
list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> >
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> send an email to
ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>>>>> ceph-users
mailing list --
>>> ceph-users(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > >>>>>>>>> send an email to
>>> ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> > >>>>>>>> ceph-users mailing
list --
>>> ceph-users(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > >>>>>>>> send an email to
ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>>>>>
>>> > >>>>
_______________________________________________
>>> > >>>> ceph-users mailing list --
ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > send
>>> > >>>> an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>
_______________________________________________
>>> > >>> ceph-users mailing list --
ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > send an
>>> >
>>> > >>> email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>
_______________________________________________
>>> > >> ceph-users mailing list --
ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To
>>> > unsubscribe
>>> > send an
>>> > >> email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe
>>> > send
>>> > an
>>> > > email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe
>>> > send
>>> > an
>>> > > email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to
>>> ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io>
>>> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io
>>> <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>
>>>
>>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free. www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io