Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Moosefs-users] moosefs-users Digest, Vol 29, Issue 7
|
From: yishi c. <hol...@gm...> - 2012-05-18 14:31:15
|
hi ：
the detail of this patch is like this：
old：
syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"(%s:%"PRIu16") chunk: %016"PRIX64"
creation status: %"PRIu8,eptr->servstrip,eptr->servport,chunkid,status);
new:
log_got_chunk_checksum %= LOG_COUNT;
if (log_got_chunk_checksum++ == 0) {
syslog(LOG_NOTICE,"(%s:%"PRIu16") chunk: %016"PRIX64" calculate checksum
status:
%"PRIu8,eptr->servstrip,eptr->servport,chunkid,status);
}
as you see ,the sametype of syslog will be printed only 1/n ，the n
can be configured in the mfsmaster.cfg.
all the code is based on 1.6.17
2012/5/11 yishi cheng <hol...@gm...>
> hi mfs-dev-team:
> I've found a small bug of moosefs:when there is a
> chunkserver with a lot of chunks(for instance,abount one million
> chunks),connected to a master which has no information about these
> chunks.the master will assign a new chunkid for each chunk,and call the
> syslog() for each chunk at the same time.that is quite a big cost.for my
> server(12 cores cpu),it can print about less than 150 syslog per second,for
> more than one million chunks it will take about two hours to handle this
> "new chunkserver".
> During this two hours,the *master can't handle the
> normal request of mfsmount*.if we have more than one MFS cluster,or the
> chunkserver has been disconnected with the master for a certain time that
> the master has already deleted all the information of these chunks.when the
> chunkserver connected to a diffrent master or reconnect to the master after
> a long time.*this bug will make the MFS system down with the normal
> request for hours*.
> the same kind of problem may occured under the
> circumstance like manually delete a lot of chunks of chunkserver，and *something
> similar with do some thing wrong with the chunks* .the master will print
> all the information of these chunks with syslog().
> I fixed these bugs and added a configuration about
> how many times we will reduce the log numbers,if will config this with
> 1000,the master will print 1/1000 of the normal log.
> the modified code is in the mail‘s attachment.inmy perspective ,this bug is critical for online service,hope you can let
> users know about the risk of this.
>
> best wished and good luck.
>
> yours tony cheng
>
> 2012/5/11 <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. Re: does MooseFS support incremental backup for data? (????)
>> 2. spindles or chunkservers for performance? (wkmail)
>> 3. bundle open source [was: Solution of small file store] (Ken)
>> 4. Re: bundle open source [was: Solution of small file store]
>> (Ken)
>> 5. Re: bundle open source [was: Solution of small file store]
>> (Dennis Jacobfeuerborn)
>> 6. Re: fox and bird (Steve Thompson)
>> 7. Moosefs git source tree not updated (Anh K. Huynh)
>> 8. Re: fox and bird (Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 09:45:25 +0800
>> From: ???? <toa...@gm...>
>> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] does MooseFS support incremental backup
>> for data?
>> To: ??? <shu...@gm...>
>> Cc: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID:
>> <CADX6XXVF5vUEjiHKtCHPMoBF9K8j-X8XFbbJ5QX2AE7gr=
>> qD...@ma...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
>>
>> use moosefs's delay delete can fit what you want.
>>
>> 2012/4/24 ??? <shu...@gm...>
>>
>> > hi,
>> > MooseFS is efficent file system for distributing. From Q&A on
>> > www.moosefs.org, I know moosefs support snapshot feature.
>> > I want to know whether if moose suppport incremental backup for data
>> > in chunkdata server? If not support, will it be added int the future?
>> >
>> > 3x
>> >
>> > Good lucky
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Live Security Virtual Conference
>> > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>> > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond.
>> Discussions
>> > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in
>> malware
>> > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > moosefs-users mailing list
>> > moo...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>> >
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 12:11:58 -0700
>> From: wkmail <wk...@bn...>
>> Subject: [Moosefs-users] spindles or chunkservers for performance?
>> To: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID: <4FA...@bn...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> We run several MFS clusters, mostly for data storage but we have been
>> pleased with their use in Email Server clusters where despite the
>> Storage penalty (the 64K chunks multiplying the storage size used)
>> performance has been quite good and compares to other solutions we have
>> tried (replicated NFS etc) with much easier maintenance. Our feeling is
>> that hard drives are still cheap (despite the Asian flood) and we have
>> lots of older kit/drives floating around in the DC.
>>
>> We currently have a 4 chunkserver setup that due to growth is beginning
>> to slow down (7+ million files now).
>>
>> Each CS has a single SATA 1TB drive. Goal is set to 3.
>>
>> Would we be better off adding additional chunkservers and thus spreading
>> the read/writes out over more CS machines?
>>
>> or would simply adding additional drives to the existing Chunkservers
>> achieve the same thing (or close to the same thing) due to the writes
>> being spread over more spindles.
>>
>> On this list I recall previous recommendations that going more than 4
>> spindles per CS was problematic due to limits in the software for the
>> number of CS connections, but
>> in this case we are starting with only 1 drive apiece now and we
>> certainly have a lot of opportunity to grow (and with the lower end kit
>> we use for chunkservers they probably only
>> have 2-4 SATA ports anyway).
>>
>> Thank You.
>>
>> -bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:17:05 +0800
>> From: Ken <ken...@gm...>
>> Subject: [Moosefs-users] bundle open source [was: Solution of small
>> file store]
>> To: moosefs-users <moo...@li...>
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> CAJ...@ma...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> hi, all
>>
>> As mention in previous mail
>> (http://sf.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29171206),
>> now we open source it - bundle
>>
>> https://github.com/xiaonei/bundle
>>
>> The source is well tested and documented.
>>
>> Demo:
>> http://60.29.242.206/demo.html
>>
>>
>> Any ideas is appreciated.
>>
>> -Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:51:37 +0800
>> From: Ken <ken...@gm...>
>> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] bundle open source [was: Solution of
>> small file store]
>> To: moosefs-users <moo...@li...>
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAJbVbdLDiHZLzwf07L=
>> v_W...@ma...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> A fast Demo:
>> http://220.181.180.55/demo.html
>>
>>
>> -Ken
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Ken <ken...@gm...> wrote:
>> > hi, all
>> >
>> > As mention in previous mail
>> > (http://sf.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29171206),
>> > now we open source it - bundle
>> >
>> > ?https://github.com/xiaonei/bundle
>> >
>> > The source is well tested and documented.
>> >
>> > Demo:
>> > ?http://60.29.242.206/demo.html
>> >
>> >
>> > Any ideas is appreciated.
>> >
>> > -Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:39:56 +0200
>> From: Dennis Jacobfeuerborn <den...@co...>
>> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] bundle open source [was: Solution of
>> small file store]
>> To: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID: <4FA...@co...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>
>> On 05/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ken wrote:
>> > hi, all
>> >
>> > As mention in previous mail
>> > (http://sf.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29171206),
>> > now we open source it - bundle
>> >
>> > https://github.com/xiaonei/bundle
>> >
>> > The source is well tested and documented.
>> >
>> > Demo:
>> > http://60.29.242.206/demo.html
>> >
>>
>> Looks really interesting, thanks!
>> You should probably add a license file to make it clear what the
>> conditions
>> for its use are.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 17:28:50 -0400 (EDT)
>> From: Steve Thompson <sm...@cb...>
>> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
>> To: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID:
>> <alp...@as...>
>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
>>
>> > I have further found that Thunderbird works well, but Firefox is so
>> > painfully slow (glacial) as to be unusable. For the time being, I have
>> had
>> > to relocate the .mozilla directories to a non-MFS file system and
>> replaced
>> > them by symbolic links.
>>
>> Now I have upgraded to 1.6.25, have emptied MFS completely apart from my
>> .mozilla directory. There are now four dedicated chunkservers with a total
>> of 20TB of SATA RAID-5 file systems formatted with ext4, and all four are
>> connected to a common HP Procurve switch using dual bonded balance-alb
>> gigabit links, dedicated to MFS, with MTU=1500. The master is running on
>> one of the chunkservers. "hdparm -t" gives me about 400 MB/sec.
>>
>> Firefox is still so painfully slow as to be unuseable. It takes something
>> like 30-45 minutes to start firefox, and several minutes to click on a
>> link. With .mozilla in an NFS mounted file system from the same disks,
>> firefox starts immediately, so it doesn't look like hardware.
>>
>> Copying a large file into MFS gets me something like 80-85 MB/sec
>> (physically twice that with goal=2) so I am at a loss to explain the
>> dismal performance with firefox. I could really use some ideas, as I have
>> no idea where to go next.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 13:50:31 +0700
>> From: "Anh K. Huynh" <anh...@gm...>
>> Subject: [Moosefs-users] Moosefs git source tree not updated
>> To: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID: <201...@gm...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Though MFS has released some new versions, I don't see any updates in
>> the git repository
>>
>>
>> http://moosefs.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=moosefs/moosefs;a=summary
>>
>> Is the git repository located at another place and/or is there anything
>> wrong here?
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Anh K. Huynh
>> ('&%:9]!~}|z2Vxwv-,POqponl$Hjig%eB@@>}=<M:9wv6WsU2T|nm-,jcL(I&%$#"
>> `CB]V?Tx<uVtT`Rpo3NlF.Jh++FdbCBA@?]!~|4XzyTT43Qsqq(Lnmkj"Fhg${z@>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 05:36:14 -0400
>> From: "Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak" <mj...@av...>
>> Subject: Re: [Moosefs-users] fox and bird
>> To: moo...@li...
>> Message-ID: <4FA...@av...>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> On 05/10/2012 05:28 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Steve Thompson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have further found that Thunderbird works well, but Firefox is so
>> >> painfully slow (glacial) as to be unusable. For the time being, I have
>> had
>> >> to relocate the .mozilla directories to a non-MFS file system and
>> replaced
>> >> them by symbolic links.
>> ...
>> > Copying a large file into MFS gets me something like 80-85 MB/sec
>> > (physically twice that with goal=2) so I am at a loss to explain the
>> > dismal performance with firefox. I could really use some ideas, as I
>> have
>> > no idea where to go next.
>>
>> I would focus on the sqlite files that firefox uses. sqlite is notorious
>> for causing problems on remote filesystems (particularly NFS).
>> "urlclassifier3.sqlite" in particular grows to be very large (~64 MB).
>>
>> Are the fsync times reported by mfs.cgi (under "disks") OK? Some apps
>> call fsync much more frequently than others.
>>
>> - Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Live Security Virtual Conference
>> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
>> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
>> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
>> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> moosefs-users mailing list
>> moo...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/moosefs-users
>>
>>
>> End of moosefs-users Digest, Vol 29, Issue 7
>> ********************************************
>>
>
>
|
