From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefan Priebe Subject: Re: FS / Kernel question choosing the correct kernel version Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 19:49:02 +0200 Message-ID: <4FE9F60E.3020105@profihost.ag> References: <4FE60A65.2030800@profihost.ag> <4FE97BE8.6010603@profihost.ag> <4FE9E006.6030404@profihost.ag> <4FE9E360.8050807@inktank.com> <4FE9E6CB.8080803@profihost.ag> <4FE9EA85.9030809@inktank.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.profihost.ag ([85.158.179.208]:37817 "EHLO mail.profihost.ag" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756168Ab2FZRtH (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:49:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FE9EA85.9030809@inktank.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Nelson Cc: Sage Weil , "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@infradead.org >> Christoph Hellwig" I would but both XFS and btrfs are crashing after a short period. XFS crashes with this one: [ 479.732636] INFO: task ceph-osd:3217 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 479.747724] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 479.763534] ceph-osd D ffffffff8180e9c0 0 3217 1 0x00000000 [ 479.779837] ffff880bc4321bd8 0000000000000082 ffff880bc5694830 0000000000012200 [ 479.779840] ffff880bc4321fd8 ffff880bc4320010 0000000000012200 0000000000012200 [ 479.779841] ffff880bc4321fd8 0000000000012200 ffff880e40ea9810 ffff880bc5694830 [ 479.779843] Call Trace: [ 479.779850] [] schedule+0x24/0x70 [ 479.779853] [] xlog_wait+0x69/0x90 [ 479.779856] [] ? try_to_wake_up+0x2b0/0x2b0 [ 479.779858] [] xlog_cil_push+0x343/0x3c0 [ 479.779861] [] ? xfs_buf_unlock+0x19/0x70 [ 479.779862] [] xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x101/0x110 [ 479.779864] [] ? xfs_trans_free_item_desc+0x2e/0x30 [ 479.779865] [] ? xfs_trans_free_items+0x87/0xb0 [ 479.779867] [] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x48/0x290 [ 479.779871] [] ? kmem_cache_free+0x1b/0xf0 [ 479.779872] [] xfs_trans_commit+0x24b/0x260 [ 479.779875] [] xfs_fs_log_dummy+0x5d/0x90 [ 479.779877] [] ? xfs_log_need_covered+0x7c/0xc0 [ 479.779879] [] xfs_quiesce_data+0x88/0x90 [ 479.779881] [] xfs_fs_sync_fs+0x28/0x60 [ 479.779884] [] __sync_filesystem+0x5e/0x90 [ 479.779885] [] sync_filesystem+0x43/0x60 [ 479.779887] [] sys_syncfs+0x48/0x80 [ 479.779890] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b Am 26.06.2012 18:59, schrieb Mark Nelson: > On 06/26/2012 11:43 AM, Stefan Priebe wrote: >> Am 26.06.2012 18:29, schrieb Mark Nelson: >>> On 06/26/2012 11:15 AM, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> If you can, it would be really interesting to see the blktrace results >>> during these tests for both xfs and btrfs. blktrace is in the ubuntu >>> repositories and can be run quite easily from the command line during >>> your test. >> >> Sure any special parameters? I have 4 SSDs per OSD Server. >> >> Or just blktrace -o file? >> >> Stefan > > For each device you run it on you'll get one file per core. There may > be some performance impact if you run blktrace on every device per node. > If your data is well distributed, even a trace for one OSD (per test) > would be interesting. > > so blktrace -o -d where device is your first > OSD or something. If you can do it for both btrfs and xfs and maybe run > each test for a couple of minutes that might be enough. > > Mark > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html