Backport #15171
Updated by Loïc Dachary about 8 years ago
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/8187
<pre>
just got done with a test against a build of 0.94.6 minus the two commits
that were backported in PR 7207. everything worked as it should with the
cache-mode set to writeback and the min_read_recency_for_promote set to 2.
assuming it works properly on master, there must be a commit that we're
missing on the backport to support this properly.
sage,
i'm adding you to the recipients on this so hopefully you see it. the tl;dr
version is that the backport of the cache recency fix to hammer doesn't
work right and potentially corrupts data when
the min_read_recency_for_promote is set to greater than 1.
mike
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Mike Lovell <mike.lovell@endurance.com>
wrote:
> robert and i have done some further investigation the past couple days on
> this. we have a test environment with a hard drive tier and an ssd tier as
> a cache. several vms were created with volumes from the ceph cluster. i did
> a test in each guest where i un-tarred the linux kernel source multiple
> times and then did a md5sum check against all of the files in the resulting
> source tree. i started off with the monitors and osds running 0.94.5 and
> never saw any problems.
>
> a single node was then upgraded to 0.94.6 which has osds in both the ssd
> and hard drive tier. i then proceeded to run the same test and, while the
> untar and md5sum operations were running, i changed the ssd tier cache-mode
> from forward to writeback. almost immediately the vms started reporting io
> errors and odd data corruption. the remainder of the cluster was updated to
> 0.94.6, including the monitors, and the same thing happened.
>
> things were cleaned up and reset and then a test was run
> where min_read_recency_for_promote for the ssd cache pool was set to 1. we
> previously had it set to 6. there was never an error with the recency
> setting set to 1. i then tested with it set to 2 and it immediately caused
> failures. we are currently thinking that it is related to the backport of
> the fix for the recency promotion and are in progress of making a .6 build
> without that backport to see if we can cause corruption. is anyone using a
> version from after the original recency fix (PR 6702) with a cache tier in
> writeback mode? anyone have a similar problem?
>
> mike
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Mike Lovell <mike.lovell@endurance.com>
> wrote:
>
>> something weird happened on one of the ceph clusters that i administer
>> tonight which resulted in virtual machines using rbd volumes seeing
>> corruption in multiple forms.
>>
>> when everything was fine earlier in the day, the cluster was a number of
>> storage nodes spread across 3 different roots in the crush map. the first
>> bunch of storage nodes have both hard drives and ssds in them with the hard
>> drives in one root and the ssds in another. there is a pool for each and
>> the pool for the ssds is a cache tier for the hard drives. the last set of
>> storage nodes were in a separate root with their own pool that is being
>> used for burn in testing.
>>
>> these nodes had run for a while with test traffic and we decided to move
>> them to the main root and pools. the main cluster is running 0.94.5 and the
>> new nodes got 0.94.6 due to them getting configured after that was
>> released. i removed the test pool and did a ceph osd crush move to move the
>> first node into the main cluster, the hard drives into the root for that
>> tier of storage and the ssds into the root and pool for the cache tier.
>> each set was done about 45 minutes apart and they ran for a couple hours
>> while performing backfill without any issue other than high load on the
>> cluster.
>>
>> we normally run the ssd tier in the forward cache-mode due to the ssds we
>> have not being able to keep up with the io of writeback. this results in io
>> on the hard drives slowing going up and performance of the cluster starting
>> to suffer. about once a week, i change the cache-mode between writeback and
>> forward for short periods of time to promote actively used data to the
>> cache tier. this moves io load from the hard drive tier to the ssd tier and
>> has been done multiple times without issue. i normally don't do this while
>> there are backfills or recoveries happening on the cluster but decided to
>> go ahead while backfill was happening due to the high load.
>>
>> i tried this procedure to change the ssd cache-tier between writeback and
>> forward cache-mode and things seemed okay from the ceph cluster. about 10
>> minutes after the first attempt a changing the mode, vms using the ceph
>> cluster for their storage started seeing corruption in multiple forms. the
>> mode was flipped back and forth multiple times in that time frame and its
>> unknown if the corruption was noticed with the first change or subsequent
>> changes. the vms were having issues of filesystems having errors and
>> getting remounted RO and mysql databases seeing corruption (both myisam and
>> innodb). some of this was recoverable but on some filesystems there was
>> corruption that lead to things like lots of data ending up in the
>> lost+found and some of the databases were un-recoverable (backups are
>> helping there).
>>
>> i'm not sure what would have happened to cause this corruption. the
>> libvirt logs for the qemu processes for the vms did not provide any output
>> of problems from the ceph client code. it doesn't look like any of the qemu
>> processes had crashed. also, it has now been several hours since this
>> happened with no additional corruption noticed by the vms. it doesn't
>> appear that we had any corruption happen before i attempted the flipping of
>> the ssd tier cache-mode.
>>
>> the only think i can think of that is different between this time doing
>> this procedure vs previous attempts was that there was the one storage node
>> running 0.94.6 where the remainder were running 0.94.5. is is possible that
>> something changed between these two releases that would have caused
>> problems with data consistency related to the cache tier? or otherwise? any
>> other thoughts or suggestions?
>>
>> thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
>>
>> mike
>>
>
>
</pre>