Hi Dan, That makes sense - the time between blacklist and magic comeback was around 1 hour - thanks for the explanation.  Is this is a safe default?  At eviction, the MDS takes all caps from the client away, so if it comes back in an hour, doesn't it then  write to files that it perhaps shouldn't have access to? There is the other strange thing ceph-fuse was doing for an hour (increased the objecter log level to 20). Here is the eviction: 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 I was blacklisted at osd epoch 1717894 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on 0x100673a2613.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.139916 ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.139916 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw objectset[0x100673a2613 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00680.ene"] 0x7fffd034b4d0) 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on 0x100673a2614.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.145199 ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.145199 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw objectset[0x100673a2614 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00685.ene"] 0x7fffd034bc20) 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on 0x100673a2615.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.150306 ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.150306 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw objectset[0x100673a2615 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00682.ene"] 0x7fffd034c1d0) ... and a lot more of these ... then the following types of messages repeat: 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131065 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131065 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131065 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131065 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} ... about 200 or so of these ... followed by 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown ... about 200 or so of these ... then again: 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700  7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} rejected again: 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} r = -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown repeating for the whole hour - using about 1Gbps bandwidth from just one node.  Then the blacklist was lifted, and presumably the writes went through: 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit clean bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher.object(100673a2670.00000008/head) try_merge_bh bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean firstbyte=32] waiters = {} 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher.object(100673a2670.00000008/head) merge_left bh[ 0x7fffac4d05b0 0~2026998 0x7fffac4d0460 (2026998) v 6079 clean firstbyte=-122] waiters = {} + bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean firstbyte=32] waiters = {} this looks like it is unsafe? Andras On 11/9/20 7:21 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote:

Hi Dan. Could you give me a hint what settings these are? Are they available in mimic? Thanks! ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Dan van der Ster <dan(a)vanderster.com> Sent: 10 November 2020 10:47:11 To: Andras Pataki Cc: ceph-users Subject: [ceph-users] Re: cephfs - blacklisted client coming back? Hi Andras, I don't have much experience with blacklisting to know what is a safe default. For our clusters we use the auto-reconnect settings and never blacklist any clients. Cheers, Dan On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:10 AM Andras Pataki <apataki(a)flatironinstitute.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users(a)ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave(a)ceph.io

Super, thanks! Yeah, I read that an unclean reconnect might lead to data loss and a proper mount/unmount is better. So far, any evicted client was rebooting, so the reconnect works fine for us with blacklisting. Good to know the alternative though. Thanks and best regards, ================= Frank Schilder AIT Risø Campus Bygning 109, rum S14 ________________________________________ From: Dan van der Ster <dan(a)vanderster.com> Sent: 10 November 2020 11:04:07 To: Frank Schilder Cc: Andras Pataki; ceph-users Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: cephfs - blacklisted client coming back? On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 10:59 AM Frank Schilder <frans(a)dtu.dk> wrote: Yes. On the mds you need: mds session blacklist on timeout = false mds session blacklist on evict = false And on the fuse client you need: client reconnect stale = true And kernels reconnect by default. (There might be some consistency sacrificed by this config, but tbh we never had an issue in a few years). Cheers, Dan > > Thanks! > ================= > Frank Schilder > AIT Risø Campus > Bygning 109, rum S14 > > ________________________________________ > From: Dan van der Ster <dan(a)vanderster.com> > Sent: 10 November 2020 10:47:11 > To: Andras Pataki > Cc: ceph-users > Subject: [ceph-users] Re: cephfs - blacklisted client coming back? > > Hi Andras, > > I don't have much experience with blacklisting to know what is a safe default. > For our clusters we use the auto-reconnect settings and never > blacklist any clients. > > Cheers, Dan > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:10 AM Andras Pataki > <apataki(a)flatironinstitute.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > That makes sense - the time between blacklist and magic comeback was > > around 1 hour - thanks for the explanation. Is this is a safe default? > > At eviction, the MDS takes all caps from the client away, so if it comes > > back in an hour, doesn't it then write to files that it perhaps > > shouldn't have access to? > > > > There is the other strange thing ceph-fuse was doing for an hour > > (increased the objecter log level to 20). > > > > Here is the eviction: > > 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 I was > > blacklisted at osd epoch 1717894 > > 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 > > remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on > > 0x100673a2613.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 > > cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 > > size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.139916 > > ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.139916 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw > > objectset[0x100673a2613 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] > > parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00680.ene"] 0x7fffd034b4d0) > > 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 > > remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on > > 0x100673a2614.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 > > cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 > > size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.145199 > > ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.145199 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw > > objectset[0x100673a2614 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] > > parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00685.ene"] 0x7fffd034bc20) > > 2020-11-09 15:56:32.762 7fffda7fc700 -1 client.111995680 > > remove_session_caps still has dirty|flushing caps on > > 0x100673a2615.head(faked_ino=0 ref=5 ll_ref=1 > > cap_refs={4=0,1024=0,4096=0,8192=0} open={3=1} mode=100640 > > size=106/4194304 nlink=1 btime=0.000000 mtime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.150306 > > ctime=2020-11-09 14:34:28.150306 caps=- dirty_caps=Fw > > objectset[0x100673a2615 ts 0/0 objects 1 dirty_or_tx 0] > > parents=0x10067375a7c.head["pwaf-00682.ene"] 0x7fffd034c1d0) > > ... and a lot more of these ... > > > > then the following types of messages repeat: > > > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131065 dirty > > firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131065 dirty > > firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131065 dirty > > firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.236 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131065 dirty > > firstbyte=96] waiters = {} > > ... about 200 or so of these ... > > > > followed by > > > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} r = > > -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:10.896 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131183 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > ... about 200 or so of these ... > > > > then again: > > > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty > > firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131183 dirty > > firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131183 dirty > > firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.260 7fffdaffd700 7 objectcacher bh_write_scattered > > bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131183 dirty > > firstbyte=96] waiters = {} > > > > rejected again: > > > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7ffe6c405f80 2051562~328804 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (328804) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=-42] waiters = {} r = > > -108 (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9b14d850 2380366~4 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=32] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > 2020-11-09 16:51:11.772 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > marking dirty again due to error bh[ 0x7fff9bc966f0 2380370~8176 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (8176) v 131349 dirty firstbyte=96] waiters = {} r = -108 > > (108) Cannot send after transport endpoint shutdown > > > > repeating for the whole hour - using about 1Gbps bandwidth from just one > > node. Then the blacklist was lifted, and presumably the writes went > > through: > > > > 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 objectcacher bh_write_commit > > clean bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean > > firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 > > objectcacher.object(100673a2670.00000008/head) try_merge_bh bh[ > > 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean firstbyte=32] > > waiters = {} > > 2020-11-09 16:56:36.840 7fffdb7fe700 10 > > objectcacher.object(100673a2670.00000008/head) merge_left bh[ > > 0x7fffac4d05b0 0~2026998 0x7fffac4d0460 (2026998) v 6079 clean > > firstbyte=-122] waiters = {} + bh[ 0x7fff60a0ae40 2026998~4 > > 0x7fffac4d0460 (4) v 160426 clean firstbyte=32] waiters = {} > > > > this looks like it is unsafe? > > > > Andras > > > > > > On 11/9/20 7:21 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote: > > > Hi Andras, > > > > > > The osd blocklist entries expire after 1hr by default: > > > > > > Option("mon_osd_blacklist_default_expire", Option::TYPE_FLOAT, > > > Option::LEVEL_ADVANCED) > > > .set_default(1_hr) > > > .add_service("mon") > > > .set_description("Duration in seconds that blacklist entries for clients " > > > "remain in the OSD map"), > > > > > > (Check mon/OSDMonitor.cc for the implementation) > > > > > > Cheers, Dan > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 11:59 PM Andras Pataki > > > <apataki(a)flatironinstitute.org> wrote: > > >> We had some network problems (high packet drops) to some cephfs client > > >> nodes that run ceph-fuse (14.2.13) against a Nautilus cluster (on > > >> version 14.2.8). As a result a couple of clients got evicted (as one > > >> would expect). What was really odd is that the clients were trying to > > >> flush data they had in cache and kept getting rejected by OSD's for > > >> almost an hour, and then magically the data flush worked. When asked > > >> afterwards, the client reported that it was no longer backlisted. How > > >> would that happen? I certainly didn't run any commands to un-blacklist > > >> a client and the docs say that otherwise the client will stay > > >> blacklisted until the file system gets remounted. > > >> > > >> Here is the status of the client when it was backlisted: > > >> [root@worker2033 ceph]# ceph daemon > > >> /var/run/ceph/ceph-client.cephfs2.7698.93825141588944.asok status > > >> { > > >> "metadata": { > > >> "ceph_sha1": "1778d63e55dbff6cedb071ab7d367f8f52a8699f", > > >> "ceph_version": "ceph version 14.2.13 > > >> (1778d63e55dbff6cedb071ab7d367f8f52a8699f) nautilus (stable)", > > >> "entity_id": "cephfs2", > > >> "hostname": "worker2033", > > >> "mount_point": "/mnt/ceph", > > >> "pid": "7698", > > >> "root": "/" > > >> }, > > >> "dentry_count": 252, > > >> "dentry_pinned_count": 9, > > >> "id": 111995680, > > >> "inst": { > > >> "name": { > > >> "type": "client", > > >> "num": 111995680 > > >> }, > > >> "addr": { > > >> "type": "v1", > > >> "addr": "10.254.65.33:0", > > >> "nonce": 410851087 > > >> } > > >> }, > > >> "addr": { > > >> "type": "v1", > > >> "addr": "10.254.65.33:0", > > >> "nonce": 410851087 > > >> }, > > >> "inst_str": "client.111995680 10.254.65.33:0/410851087", > > >> "addr_str": "10.254.65.33:0/410851087", > > >> "inode_count": 251, > > >> "mds_epoch": 3376260, > > >> "osd_epoch": 1717896, > > >> "osd_epoch_barrier": 1717893, > > >> "blacklisted": true > > >> } > > >> > > >> This corresponds to server side log messages: > > >> 2020-11-09 15:56:31.578 7fffe59a4700 1 mds.0.3376160 Evicting (and > > >> blacklisting) client session 111995680 (10.254.65.33:0/410851087) > > >> 2020-11-09 15:56:31.578 7fffe59a4700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [INF] : > > >> Evicting (and blacklisting) client session 111995680 > > >> (10.254.65.33:0/410851087) > > >> 2020-11-09 15:56:31.706 7fffe59a4700 1 mds.0.3376160 Evicting (and > > >> blacklisting) client session 111995680 (10.254.65.33:0/410851087) > > >> 2020-11-09 15:56:31.706 7fffe59a4700 0 log_channel(cluster) log [INF] : > > >> Evicting (and blacklisting) client session 111995680 > > >> (10.254.65.33:0/410851087) > > >> > > >> and them some time later (perhaps half an hour or so) I got this from > > >> the client: > > >> > > >> [root@worker2033 ceph]# ceph daemon > > >> /var/run/ceph/ceph-client.cephfs2.7698.93825141588944.asok status > > >> { > > >> "metadata": { > > >> "ceph_sha1": "1778d63e55dbff6cedb071ab7d367f8f52a8699f", > > >> "ceph_version": "ceph version 14.2.13 > > >> (1778d63e55dbff6cedb071ab7d367f8f52a8699f) nautilus (stable)", > > >> "entity_id": "cephfs2", > > >> "hostname": "worker2033", > > >> "mount_point": "/mnt/ceph", > > >> "pid": "7698", > > >> "root": "/" > > >> }, > > >> "dentry_count": 252, > > >> "dentry_pinned_count": 9, > > >> "id": 111995680, > > >> "inst": { > > >> "name": { > > >> "type": "client", > > >> "num": 111995680 > > >> }, > > >> "addr": { > > >> "type": "v1", > > >> "addr": "10.254.65.33:0", > > >> "nonce": 410851087 > > >> } > > >> }, > > >> "addr": { > > >> "type": "v1", > > >> "addr": "10.254.65.33:0", > > >> "nonce": 410851087 > > >> }, > > >> "inst_str": "client.111995680 10.254.65.33:0/410851087", > > >> "addr_str": "10.254.65.33:0/410851087", > > >> "inode_count": 251, > > >> "mds_epoch": 3376260, > > >> "osd_epoch": 1717897, > > >> "osd_epoch_barrier": 1717893, > > >> "blacklisted": false > > >> } > > >> > > >> The cluster was otherwise healthy - nothing wrong with MDS's, or any > > >> placement groups, etc. I also don't see any further log messages > > >> regarding eviction/backlisting in the MDS logs. I didn't run any ceph > > >> commands that would change the state of the cluster - I was just looking > > >> around, increasing log levels. > > >> > > >> Any ideas how could that have happened? > > >> > > >> A separate problem (perhaps needs a ticket filed) that while the > > >> ceph-fuse client was in a blacklisted state, it was retrying in an > > >> infinite loop to flush data to the OSD's and got rejected every time. I > > >> have some logs for the details of this too. > > >> > > >> Andras > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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