parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Andrey Korolyov]

$ ceph osd down -
osd.0 is already down
$ ceph osd down ---
osd.0 is already down

the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
refusing all other input.

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Gregory Farnum]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 11:45 PM, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> $ ceph osd down -
> osd.0 is already down
> $ ceph osd down ---
> osd.0 is already down
> 
> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
> refusing all other input.

 
Yes indeed! This is already fixed in bobtail (and v0.54, maybe?), and I believe Joao went through and audited all our input parsing pretty carefully. Certainly things are much better than they were.
-Greg

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Sage Weil]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> $ ceph osd down -
> osd.0 is already down
> $ ceph osd down ---
> osd.0 is already down
> 
> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
> refusing all other input.

which branch is this?  this parsing is cleaned u pin the latest 
next/master.



> --
> 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
> 
> 

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 11/29/2012 04:34 PM, Sage Weil wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
>> $ ceph osd down -
>> osd.0 is already down
>> $ ceph osd down ---
>> osd.0 is already down
>>
>> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
>> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
>> refusing all other input.
> 
> which branch is this?  this parsing is cleaned u pin the latest 
> next/master.

I confirm this is fixed, but while making sure noticed that 'ceph osd
create <garbage>' will create an osd nonetheless. Just added a fix for
this to wip-mon-osd-create-fix that will make sure that if the uuid
argument is specified, then -EINVAL is returned in case the uuid is invalid.

  -Joao

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Andrey Korolyov]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
>> $ ceph osd down -
>> osd.0 is already down
>> $ ceph osd down ---
>> osd.0 is already down
>>
>> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
>> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
>> refusing all other input.
>
> which branch is this?  this parsing is cleaned u pin the latest
> next/master.
>
>

It was produced by 0.54-tag. I have built
dd3a24a647d0b0f1153cf1b102ed1f51d51be2f2 today and problem has
gone(except parsing ``-0'' as 0 and 00000/0000001 as 0 and 1
correspondingly).

>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 11/29/2012 07:01 PM, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
>>> $ ceph osd down -
>>> osd.0 is already down
>>> $ ceph osd down ---
>>> osd.0 is already down
>>>
>>> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
>>> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
>>> refusing all other input.
>>
>> which branch is this?  this parsing is cleaned u pin the latest
>> next/master.
>>
>>
> 
> It was produced by 0.54-tag. I have built
> dd3a24a647d0b0f1153cf1b102ed1f51d51be2f2 today and problem has
> gone(except parsing ``-0'' as 0 and 00000/0000001 as 0 and 1
> correspondingly).

We use strtol() to parse numeric values, and '-0', '00000' or '00001'
are valid numeric values. I suppose we could enforce the argument to be
numeric only, hence getting rid of '-0' and enforce stricter checks on
the parameters to rule out valid numeric values that look funny, which
in the '0*\d' cases it should be fairly simple.

  -Joao

Re: parsing in the ceph osd subsystem

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 11/29/2012 07:01 PM, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012, Andrey Korolyov wrote:
>>> $ ceph osd down -
>>> osd.0 is already down
>>> $ ceph osd down ---
>>> osd.0 is already down
>>>
>>> the same for ``+'', ``/'', ``%'' and so - I think that for osd subsys
>>> ceph cli should explicitly work only with positive integers plus zero,
>>> refusing all other input.
>>
>> which branch is this?  this parsing is cleaned u pin the latest
>> next/master.
>>
>>
> 
> It was produced by 0.54-tag. I have built
> dd3a24a647d0b0f1153cf1b102ed1f51d51be2f2 today and problem has
> gone(except parsing ``-0'' as 0 and 00000/0000001 as 0 and 1
> correspondingly).

A fix for the signed parameter has been pushed to next. However, after
consideration, when it comes to the '0+\d' parameters, that kind of
input was considered valid; Greg put it best on IRC, and I quote:

<gregaf> joao: not sure we want to prevent "01" from parsing as 1, I
suspect some people with large clusters will find that useful so they
can conflate the name and ID while keeping everything three digits

Hope this makes sense to you.

  -Joao

What is the new command to add osd to the crushmap to enable it to receive data

[Isaac Otsiabah]

This command below which adds a new to the crushmap to enable it to receive data has changed and does not work anymore.


ceph osd crush set {id} {name}


Please, what is the new command to add a new osd to the crushmap to enable it to receive data?


Isaac 

Re: What is the new command to add osd to the crushmap to enable it to receive data

[Joao Eduardo Luis]

On 11/30/2012 01:22 AM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote:
> This command below which adds a new to the crushmap to enable it to receive data has changed and does not work anymore.
> 
> 
> ceph osd crush set {id} {name}
> 
> 
> Please, what is the new command to add a new osd to the crushmap to enable it to receive data?

You must specify a weight and a location. For instance,

  ceph osd crush set 0 osd.0 1.0 root=default

Also, you can check up on the docs for more infos.

From the docs at [1]:

Add the OSD to the CRUSH map so that it can begin receiving data. You
may also decompile the CRUSH map, add the OSD to the device list, add
the host as a bucket (if it’s not already in the CRUSH map), add the
device as an item in the host, assign it a weight, recompile it and set
it. See Add/Move an OSD for details.

ceph osd crush set {id} {name} {weight} pool={pool-name}
[{bucket-type}={bucket-name} ...]


[1] http://ceph.com/docs/master/rados/operations/add-or-rm-osds/


  -Joao
--
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

osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster

[Isaac Otsiabah]

When i add a new host (with osd's) to my existing cluster, 1 or 2 previous osd(s) goes down for about 2 minutes and then they  come back up.  


[root@h1ct ~]# ceph osd tree

# id    weight  type name       up/down reweight
-1     
3       root default
-3      3               rack unknownrack
-2      3                       host h1
0       1                               osd.0   up      1
1       1                               osd.1   up      1
2      
1                               osd.2   up      1


For example, after adding host h2 (with 3 new osd) to the above cluster and running the "ceph osd tree" command, i see this: 


[root@h1 ~]# ceph osd tree

# id    weight  type name       up/down reweight
-1      6       root default
-3     
6               rack unknownrack
-2      3                       host h1
0       1                               osd.0   up      1
1       1                               osd.1   down    1
2      
1                               osd.2   up      1
-4      3                       host h2
3       1                               osd.3   up      1
4       1                               osd.4   up     
1
5       1                               osd.5   up      1


The down osd always come back up after 2 minutes or less andi see the following error message in the respective osd log file:  
2013-01-07 04:40:17.613028 7fec7f092760  1 journal _open 
/ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 1073741824 bytes, block size 
4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0
2013-01-07 04:40:17.613122 
7fec7f092760  1 journal _open /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 
1073741824 bytes, block size 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0
2013-01-07
04:42:10.006533 7fec746f7710  0 -- 192.168.0.124:6808/19449 >> 
192.168.1.123:6800/18287 pipe(0x7fec20000e10 sd=31 :6808 pgs=0 cs=0 
l=0).accept connect_seq 0 vs existing 0 state connecting
2013-01-07 
04:45:29.834341 7fec743f4710  0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 
192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45438 pgs=7 cs=1 
l=0).fault, initiating reconnect
2013-01-07 04:45:29.835748 
7fec743f4710  0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 
192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45439 pgs=15 cs=3 
l=0).fault, initiating reconnect
2013-01-07 04:45:30.835219 7fec743f4710  0 -- 
192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 
pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45894 pgs=482 cs=903 l=0).fault, initiating 
reconnect
2013-01-07 04:45:30.837318 7fec743f4710  0 -- 
192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 
pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45895 pgs=483 cs=905 l=0).fault, initiating 
reconnect
2013-01-07 04:45:30.851984 7fec637fe710  0 log [ERR] : map 
e27 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6808/19449 != my 
192.168.1.124:6808/19449)

Also, this only happens  only when the cluster ip address and the public ip address are different for example
....
....
....
[osd.0]
        host = g8ct
        public address = 192.168.0.124
        cluster address = 192.168.1.124
        btrfs devs = /dev/sdb

....
....

but does not happen when they are the same.  Any idea what may be the issue?

Isaac
--
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

Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster

[Gregory Farnum]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Isaac Otsiabah wrote:
> 
> 
> When i add a new host (with osd's) to my existing cluster, 1 or 2 previous osd(s) goes down for about 2 minutes and then they come back up. 
> 
> 
> [root@h1ct ~]# ceph osd tree
> 
> # id weight type name up/down reweight
> -1 
> 3 root default
> -3 3 rack unknownrack
> -2 3 host h1
> 0 1 osd.0 up 1
> 1 1 osd.1 up 1
> 2 
> 1 osd.2 up 1
> 
> 
> For example, after adding host h2 (with 3 new osd) to the above cluster and running the "ceph osd tree" command, i see this: 
> 
> 
> [root@h1 ~]# ceph osd tree
> 
> # id weight type name up/down reweight
> -1 6 root default
> -3 
> 6 rack unknownrack
> -2 3 host h1
> 0 1 osd.0 up 1
> 1 1 osd.1 down 1
> 2 
> 1 osd.2 up 1
> -4 3 host h2
> 3 1 osd.3 up 1
> 4 1 osd.4 up 
> 1
> 5 1 osd.5 up 1
> 
> 
> The down osd always come back up after 2 minutes or less andi see the following error message in the respective osd log file: 
> 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613028 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open 
> /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 1073741824 bytes, block size 
> 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0
> 2013-01-07 04:40:17.613122 
> 7fec7f092760 1 journal _open /ceph_journal/journals/journal_2 fd 26: 
> 1073741824 bytes, block size 4096 bytes, directio = 1, aio = 0
> 2013-01-07
> 04:42:10.006533 7fec746f7710 0 -- 192.168.0.124:6808/19449 >> 
> 192.168.1.123:6800/18287 pipe(0x7fec20000e10 sd=31 :6808 pgs=0 cs=0 
> l=0).accept connect_seq 0 vs existing 0 state connecting
> 2013-01-07 
> 04:45:29.834341 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 
> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45438 pgs=7 cs=1 
> l=0).fault, initiating reconnect
> 2013-01-07 04:45:29.835748 
> 7fec743f4710 0 -- 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 
> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45439 pgs=15 cs=3 
> l=0).fault, initiating reconnect
> 2013-01-07 04:45:30.835219 7fec743f4710 0 -- 
> 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 
> pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45894 pgs=482 cs=903 l=0).fault, initiating 
> reconnect
> 2013-01-07 04:45:30.837318 7fec743f4710 0 -- 
> 192.168.1.124:6808/19449 >> 192.168.1.122:6800/20072 
> pipe(0x7fec5402f320 sd=28 :45895 pgs=483 cs=905 l=0).fault, initiating 
> reconnect
> 2013-01-07 04:45:30.851984 7fec637fe710 0 log [ERR] : map 
> e27 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6808/19449 != my 
> 192.168.1.124:6808/19449)
> 
> Also, this only happens only when the cluster ip address and the public ip address are different for example
> ....
> ....
> ....
> [osd.0]
> host = g8ct
> public address = 192.168.0.124
> cluster address = 192.168.1.124
> btrfs devs = /dev/sdb
> 
> ....
> ....
> 
> but does not happen when they are the same. Any idea what may be the issue?
> 
This isn't familiar to me at first glance. What version of Ceph are you using?

If this is easy to reproduce, can you pastebin your ceph.conf and then add "debug ms = 1" to your global config and gather up the logs from each daemon?
-Greg

Re: osd down (for 2 about 2 minutes) error after adding a new host to my cluster

[Gregory Farnum]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Greg, it appears to be a timing issue because with the flag (debug ms=1) turned on, the system ran slower and became harder to fail. I ran it several times and finally got it to fail on (osd.0) using default crush map. The attached tar file contains log files  for all components on g8ct plus the ceph.conf.
>
> I started with a 1-node cluster on host g8ct (osd.0, osd.1, osd.2)  and then added host g13ct (osd.3, osd.4, osd.5)
>
>
>
>  id    weight  type name       up/down reweight
> -1      6       root default
> -3      6               rack unknownrack
> -2      3                       host g8ct
> 0       1                               osd.0   down    1
> 1       1                               osd.1   up      1
> 2       1                               osd.2   up      1
> -4      3                       host g13ct
> 3       1                               osd.3   up      1
> 4       1                               osd.4   up      1
> 5       1                               osd.5   up      1
>
>
>
> The error messages are in ceph.log and ceph-osd.0.log:
>
> ceph.log:2013-01-08 05:41:38.080470 osd.0 192.168.0.124:6801/25571 3 : [ERR] map e15 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my 192.168.1.124:6802/25571)
> ceph-osd.0.log:2013-01-08 05:41:38.080458 7f06757fa710  0 log [ERR] : map e15 had wrong cluster addr (192.168.0.124:6802/25571 != my 192.168.1.124:6802/25571)

Thanks. I had a brief look through these logs on Tuesday and want to
spend more time with them because they have some odd stuff in them. It
*looks* like the OSD is starting out using a single IP for both the
public and cluster networks and then switching over at some point,
which is...odd.
Knowing more details about how your network is actually set up would
be very helpful.
-Greg

What is the acceptable attachment file size on the mail server?

[Isaac Otsiabah]

What is the acceptable attachment file size? because i have been trying to post a problem with an attachment greater than 1.5MG and it seems  to get lost.

Isaac
--
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

Re: What is the acceptable attachment file size on the mail server?

[Gregory Farnum]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is the acceptable attachment file size? because i have been trying to post a problem with an attachment greater than 1.5MG and it seems  to get lost.

That wouldn't be surprising; Sage suggests the FAQ
(http://www.tux.org/lkml/) has an answer somewhere although I couldn't
find it in a quick check.
-Greg

Re: What is the acceptable attachment file size on the mail server?

[Yan, Zheng]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Isaac Otsiabah <zmoo76b@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What is the acceptable attachment file size? because i have been trying to post a problem with an attachment greater than 1.5MG and it seems  to get lost.

I remember that some time ago, LKML does not accept mail larger than
100k. But I don't know if that limit has changed.

Yan, Zheng