Re: storage, libaio, or XFS problem? 3.4.26

Stan Hoeppner
2014-08-30T02:56:01Z

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:55:38 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 11:38:16AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:08:17 +1000, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 05:31:33PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 10:32:27 +1000, Dave Chinner
<david@fromorbit.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:19:43PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> >> >> Aug 25 23:05:39 Anguish-ssu-1 kernel: [22409.328839] XFS (sdd):
>> >> >> xfs_do_force_shutdown(0x8) called from line 3732 of file
>> >> >> fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c.
>> >> >> Return address = 0xffffffffa01cc9a6
>> >> >
>> >> > Yup, that's kinda important. That's from xfs_bmap_finish(), and
>> >> > freeing an extent has failed and triggered SHUTDOWN_CORRUPT_INCORE
>> >> > which it's found some kind of inconsistency in the free space
>> >> > btrees. So, likely the same problem that caused EFI recovery to
fail
>> >> > on the other volume.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are the tests being run on newly made filesystems? If not, have
>> >> > these filesystems had xfs_repair run on them after a failure? If
>> >> > so, what is the error that is fixed? If not, does repairing the
>> >> > filesystem make the problem go away?
>> >>
>> >> Newly made after every error of any kind, whether app, XFS shutdown,
>> call
>> >> trace, etc. I've not attempted xfs_repair.
>> >
>> > Please do.
>>
>> Another storage crash yesterday. xfs_repair output inline below for
the
>> 7
>> filesystems. I'm also pasting the dmesg output. This time there is no
>> oops, no call traces. The filesystems mounted fine after mounting,
>> replaying, and repairing.
>
> Ok, what version of xfs_repair did you use?

3.1.4 which is a little long in the tooth. I believe they built the OS
image from Squeeze 6.0. I was originally told it was Wheezy 7.0, but that
turns out to have been false.

>> > The bug? The bleeding edge storage arrays being used had had a
>> > firmware bug in it. When the number of outstanding IOs hit the
>> > *array controller* command tag queue depth limit (some several
>> > thousand simultaneous IOs in flight) it would occasionally misdirect
>> > a single write IO to the *wrong lun*. i.e. it would misdirect a
>> > write.
>> >
>> > It was only under *extreme* loads that this would happen, and it's
>> > this sort of load that AIO+DIO can easily generate - you can have
>> > several thousand IOs in flight without too much hassle, and that
>> > will hit limits in the storage arrays that aren't often hit. Array
>> > controller CTQ depth limits are a good example of a limit that
>> > normal IO won't go near to stressing.
>>
>> I hadn't considered that up to this point. That is *very* insightful,
>> and
>> applicable, since we are dealing with a beta storage array and
firmware.
>> Worth mentioning is that the storage vendor has added a custom routine
>> which expends Herculean effort to identify full stripes before
>> writeback.
>
> Hmmmm. Food for thought, especially as it is evident that the
> storage array appears to be crashing completely. At this point,
> I'd say the burden of finding a corruption needs to start with
> proving that the array is has not done something wrong. Once you
> know that what is on disk is exactly what the filesystem asked to be
> written, then you can start to isolate filesystem issues. But you
> need the storage to be solid and trust-worthy before going looking
> for filesystem problems....

Agreed. Which is why I put storage first in the subject, AIO second, and
XFS third. My initial instinct was a problem with libaio, as the crashes
only surfaced writing with AIO. I'm now seeing problems with storage on
both systems when not using AIO. We're supposed to receive a new firmware
upload next week, so hopefully that will fix some of these issues.

>> This because some of our writes for a given low rate stream are as low
as
>> 32KB and may be 2-3 seconds apart. With a 64-128KB chunk, 768 to
1536KB
>> stripe width, we'd get massive RMW without this feature. Testing thus
>> far
>> shows it is fairly effective, though we still get pretty serious RMW
due
>> to
>> the fact we're writing 350 of these small streams per array at ~72 KB/s
>> max, along with 2 streams at ~48 MB/s, and and 50 streams at ~1.2 MB/s.

>> Multiply this by 7 LUNs per controller and it becomes clear we're
>> putting a
>> pretty serious load on the firmware and cache.
>
> Yup, so having the array cache do the equivalent of sequential
> readahead multi-stream detection for writeback would make a big
> difference. But not simple to do....

Not at all, especially with only 3 GB of RAM to work with, as I'm told.
Seems low for a high end controller with 4x 12G SAS ports. We're only able
to achieve ~250 MB/s per array at the application due to the access pattern
being essentially random, and still with a serious quantity of RMWs. Which
is why we're going to test with an even smaller chunk of 32KB. I believe
that's the lower bound on these controllers. For this workload 16KB or
maybe even 8KB would likely be more optimal. We're also going to test with
bcache and a 400 GB Intel 3700 (datacenter grade) SSD backing two LUNs.
But with bcache chunk size should be far less relevant. I'm anxious to
kick those tires, but it'll be a couple of weeks.

Have you played with bcache yet?