Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Moosefs-users] moosefs-users Digest, Vol 27, Issue 24
|
From: yishi c. <hol...@gm...> - 2012-03-29 16:04:44
|
Re:fs_writechunk returns status 11 (Brent A Nelson)
"fs_writechunk returns status 11"means the file you wanna write to is
locked(probably this file is written by the other mfsmount，so the mfs will
lock the file when there is mfsmount writting the exactly same file).you
can confirm these information by reviewing the
code(mfscommon/MFSCOMMUNICATION.h,mfsmaster/filesystem.c,mfsmaster/chunk.c,actually，the
11 means ERROR_LOCKED which indicate the chunk is written by other
mfsmount)， since I have no idea of the google chrome cache-file，no more
suggestion I can give to you.maybe the google chrome cache-file is
frequently writed.
It is not commanded to store small but in large number file in
moosefs,the hash table to store the fsnode(inode) is not big enough,and the
network connection model of moosefs could be improved as same.
2012/3/29 <moo...@li...>
> Send moosefs-users mailing list submissions to
> moo...@li...
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> moo...@li...
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> moo...@li...
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of moosefs-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. fs_writechunk returns status 11 (Brent A Nelson)
> 2. is rack awareness documented? (mARK bLOORE)
> 3. fox and bird (Steve Thompson)
> 4. Re: fox and bird (Steve Wilson)
> 5. Re: fs_writechunk returns status 11 (Steve Thompson)
> 6. Re: fox and bird (Brent A Nelson)
> 7. Re: fox and bird (Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak)
> 8. Re: fox and bird (Steve Wilson)
> 9. Re: fs_writechunk returns status 11 (Brent A Nelson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 13:53:39 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Brent A Nelson <br...@ph...>
> Subject: [Moosefs-users] fs_writechunk returns status 11
> To: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <alp...@ca...>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I've been using MooseFS 1.6.20 on 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 for a year or so,
> and it's been working rather well. However, I get a certain type of error
> that will fill my logging space from time-to-time:
>
> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 4282810, index: 0 -
> fs_writechunk returns status 11
> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 7214721, index: 0 -
> fs_writechunk returns status 11
> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 7214723, index: 0 -
> fs_writechunk returns status 11
> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 7214717, index: 0 -
> fs_writechunk returns status 11
> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 7214722, index: 0 -
> fs_writechunk returns status 11
>
> This will repeat in long bursts, and then be quiet for awhile (hours or
> days). The machine on which this occurs is one where MooseFS is mounted
> for my home directory (Linux/Gnome environment). I have not noticed any
> corresponding errors in the server logs. The files referenced above are
> all Google Chrome cache-related. Perhaps all such errors have been from
> Google Chrome files; most or all that I've looked at previously have been.
>
> I'd like to move other users' home directories to MooseFS. It's been
> doing fine for non-home directories, but this error filling the logs (but
> not having any other obvious impact) looks to be a small obstacle for home
> directories. There is also the Openoffice bug which cause it to break
> with MooseFS, but I can get all the rest of my machines over to
> LibreOffice without much trouble. We want to be on LibreOffice, anyway.
>
> Does anyone know what causes the "fs_writechunk returns status 11"
> complaints? Is it already fixed in the new release? Is it specific to
> Google Chrome (and perhaps its fault), or is it just that Google Chrome
> is active more than anything else, at all times, and is therefore more
> prone to glitches?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brent Nelson
> Director of Computing
> Dept. of Physics
> University of Florida
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:58:30 -0400
> From: mARK bLOORE <mb...@id...>
> Subject: [Moosefs-users] is rack awareness documented?
> To: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <4F7...@id...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> the file mfstopology.cfg describes how to set up server groups, but says
> nothing about how the
> groups are used. is there any documentation on that? all i have been
> able to find is the mention
> of that config file's existence in the release notes.
>
> --
> mARK bLOORE <mb...@id...>
> idee inc.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Steve Thompson <sm...@cb...>
> Subject: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
> To: moo...@li...
> Message-ID:
> <alp...@as...>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
>
> MooseFS 1.6.20, Linux (Centos 5.7).
>
> I have discovered that neither firefox nor thunderbird (V10) will run
> correctly when launched from a MooseFS-based home directory; they just
> hang indefinitely. Does anyone else have this experience, or have I
> screwed up somewhere? Thanks,
>
> Steve
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Thompson, Cornell School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
> smt AT cbe DOT cornell DOT edu
> "186,282 miles per second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:46:57 -0400
> From: Steve Wilson <st...@pu...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
> To: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <4F7...@pu...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 03/28/2012 03:33 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > MooseFS 1.6.20, Linux (Centos 5.7).
> >
> > I have discovered that neither firefox nor thunderbird (V10) will run
> > correctly when launched from a MooseFS-based home directory; they just
> > hang indefinitely. Does anyone else have this experience, or have I
> > screwed up somewhere? Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
>
> We're using MooseFS 1.6.20 for home directories in an Ubuntu
> environment. We do get the occasional "fs_writechunk returns status 11"
> error noted earlier by Brent Nelson on this list but no problems like
> what you're seeing. I know we have users running Firefox but I'm not
> sure if anyone is using Thunderbird. We've been extremely pleased with
> MooseFS in the 12 months or so that we've been using it.
>
> Steve W.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:57:39 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Steve Thompson <sm...@cb...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fs_writechunk returns status 11
> To: Brent A Nelson <br...@ph...>
> Cc: moo...@li...
> Message-ID:
> <alp...@as...>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Brent A Nelson wrote:
>
> > Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 4282810, index: 0 -
> > fs_writechunk returns status 11
>
> I've seen exactly one occurrence of this in the two months that I have
> been using MooseFS (CentOS 5.7, mfs 1.6.20). We don't use Google Chrome,
> so it wasn't that in my case. I don't know the cause.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:00:00 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Brent A Nelson <br...@ph...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
> To: Steve Wilson <st...@pu...>
> Cc: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <alp...@ca...>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> I, too, have encountered no issues with firefox under Ubuntu (8.04 or
> 10.04). I haven't tried Thunderbird. OpenOffice has an issue with the
> same effect as what you describe, but it's a known OpenOffice bug, and
> it's fixed in LibreOffice.
>
> Incidentally, for the "fs_writechunk returns status 11" messages, I've
> told google-chrome to disable its cache (-disk-cache-dir="/dev/null"),
> which I suspect will do the trick. Chrome also now seems much faster...
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Steve Wilson wrote:
>
> > On 03/28/2012 03:33 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >> MooseFS 1.6.20, Linux (Centos 5.7).
> >>
> >> I have discovered that neither firefox nor thunderbird (V10) will run
> >> correctly when launched from a MooseFS-based home directory; they just
> >> hang indefinitely. Does anyone else have this experience, or have I
> >> screwed up somewhere? Thanks,
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > We're using MooseFS 1.6.20 for home directories in an Ubuntu
> > environment. We do get the occasional "fs_writechunk returns status 11"
> > error noted earlier by Brent Nelson on this list but no problems like
> > what you're seeing. I know we have users running Firefox but I'm not
> > sure if anyone is using Thunderbird. We've been extremely pleased with
> > MooseFS in the 12 months or so that we've been using it.
> >
> > Steve W.
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF email is sponsosred by:
> > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> > _______________________________________________
> > moosefs-users mailing list
> > moo...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:44:20 -0400
> From: "Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak" <mj...@av...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
> To: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <4F7...@av...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 03/28/2012 03:33 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> > MooseFS 1.6.20, Linux (Centos 5.7).
> >
> > I have discovered that neither firefox nor thunderbird (V10) will run
> > correctly when launched from a MooseFS-based home directory; they just
> > hang indefinitely. Does anyone else have this experience, or have I
> > screwed up somewhere? Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
>
> I'm running 1.6.20 on Fedora 16 servers, with several Fedora 16 clients
> (who have their home folders on the moosefs mount).
>
> Firefox and Thunderbird work just fine. No issues at all.
>
> LibreOffice was painfully slow, until I converted the chunkserver hard
> drives to SSDs. I think LibreOffice was fsyncing way too frequently
> (just a theory). Speedy Intel SSDs made that problem go away.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:04:26 -0400
> From: Steve Wilson <st...@pu...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
> To: Brent A Nelson <br...@ph...>
> Cc: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <4F7...@pu...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 03/28/2012 04:00 PM, Brent A Nelson wrote:
> > I, too, have encountered no issues with firefox under Ubuntu (8.04 or
> > 10.04). I haven't tried Thunderbird. OpenOffice has an issue with
> > the same effect as what you describe, but it's a known OpenOffice bug,
> > and it's fixed in LibreOffice.
> >
> > Incidentally, for the "fs_writechunk returns status 11" messages, I've
> > told google-chrome to disable its cache (-disk-cache-dir="/dev/null"),
> > which I suspect will do the trick. Chrome also now seems much faster...
> >
>
> We see the status 11 errors whenever multiple workstations attempt to
> simultaneously write to the same file in a MooseFS volume.
>
> Steve
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Steve Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/28/2012 03:33 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >>> MooseFS 1.6.20, Linux (Centos 5.7).
> >>>
> >>> I have discovered that neither firefox nor thunderbird (V10) will run
> >>> correctly when launched from a MooseFS-based home directory; they just
> >>> hang indefinitely. Does anyone else have this experience, or have I
> >>> screwed up somewhere? Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Steve
> >>
> >> We're using MooseFS 1.6.20 for home directories in an Ubuntu
> >> environment. We do get the occasional "fs_writechunk returns status 11"
> >> error noted earlier by Brent Nelson on this list but no problems like
> >> what you're seeing. I know we have users running Firefox but I'm not
> >> sure if anyone is using Thunderbird. We've been extremely pleased with
> >> MooseFS in the 12 months or so that we've been using it.
> >>
> >> Steve W.
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> >> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> moosefs-users mailing list
> >> moo...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
> >>
>
> --
> Steven M. Wilson, Systems and Network Manager
> Markey Center for Structural Biology
> Purdue University
> (765) 496-1946
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:46:31 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Brent A Nelson <br...@ph...>
> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fs_writechunk returns status 11
> To: Steve Thompson <sm...@cb...>
> Cc: moo...@li...
> Message-ID: <alp...@ca...>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> By some near miraculous coincidence, my subject linked up with a thread
> from a year ago, which explained that the message is due to an attempt to
> write to a chunk that is already locked for writing by something else.
>
> I'm guessing that Google Chrome, with its highly threaded nature, kind of
> trips over itself when it comes to the cache, sometimes generating huge
> bursts of warnings from MooseFS (it really can quickly fill /var).
> Otherwise, you'd probably run into this when running two programs that try
> to write to the same file, which should be rare and not really an issue.
>
> It's a pity that Chrome doesn't have some file to edit so that you can set
> system-wide defaults, but the '--disk-cache-dir="/dev/null"' command-line
> option does look promising (and, as I mentioned in the Firefox thread, it
> seems to give Chrome a substantial speed boost when running on MooseFS).
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Brent A Nelson wrote:
> >
> >> Mar 23 07:02:01 somehost mfsmount[31484]: file: 4282810, index: 0 -
> >> fs_writechunk returns status 11
> >
> > I've seen exactly one occurrence of this in the two months that I have
> been
> > using MooseFS (CentOS 5.7, mfs 1.6.20). We don't use Google Chrome, so it
> > wasn't that in my case. I don't know the cause.
> >
> > Steve
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> moosefs-users mailing list
> moo...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>
>
> End of moosefs-users Digest, Vol 27, Issue 24
> *********************************************
>
|
