[PVE-User] Proxmox Kernel / Ceph Integration

Marcus Haarmann marcus.haarmann at midoco.de
Fri Jul 27 12:05:16 CEST 2018


Hi, 

we tried to build the kernel and the message vanished, yes. 
However, the error situation was more unstable than before, so we went back to an official version of the kernel, 
because the build process was "rough" for us ... (we do not do this kind of things very often). 
Since this patch is officially backported in several kernels (obviously from a ceph team member who knows what he was doing), 
but not in 4.15, I would presume this should not make things worse. 
The situation which we get here seems to be the same as descibed: a mon connection is lost for some reason and the kernel 
ceph client seems to be stuck in a kind of endless loop, because of two identical timers. 
That is what the patch addresses. 

But you are right, we should solve the issue why the mon connection is lost (this is during a backup -> high I/O on network, 
which might cause the mon connection loss). 
Next step is to modify the bond to be just a failover instead of balance-alb (more conservative ...) 

Marcus Haarmann 


Von: "Thomas Lamprecht" <t.lamprecht at proxmox.com> 
An: "pve-user" <pve-user at pve.proxmox.com>, "Marcus Haarmann" <marcus.haarmann at midoco.de> 
Gesendet: Freitag, 27. Juli 2018 11:12:24 
Betreff: Re: [PVE-User] Proxmox Kernel / Ceph Integration 

Hi, 

Am 07/27/2018 um 11:02 AM schrieb Marcus Haarmann: 
> Hi experts, 
> 
> we are using a Proxmox cluster with an underlying ceph storage. 
> Versions are pve 5.2-2 with kernel 4.15.18-1-pve and ceph luminous 12.2.5 
> We are running a couple of VM and also Containers there. 
> 3 virtual NIC (as bond balance-alb), ceph uses 2 bonded 10GBit interfaces (public/cluster separated) 
> 
> It occurs during nightly backup that backup stalls. In parallel, we get lots of messages in the dmesg: 
> [137612.371311] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session established 
> [137643.090541] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137643.091383] libceph: mon1 192.168.16.32:6789 session established 
> [137673.810526] libceph: mon1 192.168.16.32:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137673.811388] libceph: mon2 192.168.16.34:6789 session established 
> [137704.530567] libceph: mon2 192.168.16.34:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137704.531363] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session established 
> [137735.250593] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137735.251352] libceph: mon1 192.168.16.32:6789 session established 
> [137765.970608] libceph: mon1 192.168.16.32:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137765.971544] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session established 
> [137796.690605] libceph: mon0 192.168.16.31:6789 session lost, hunting for new mon 
> [137796.691412] libceph: mon1 192.168.16.32:6789 session established 
> 
> We are searching for the issue for a while, since the blocking backup is not easy to overcome (unblocking does not help, 
> only stop and migrate to a different server, since the rbd device seems to block). 
> It seems to be related to the ceph messages. 
> We found the following patch related to these messages (which may lead to a blocking state in kernel): 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7b4c443d139f1d2b5570da475f7a9cbcef86740c 
> 
> We have tried to patch the kernel ourselfes, but this was not successful. 
> 

Porting the patch was not successful or the patch did not worked as 
expected? 

> Although I presume the real error situation is related to a network problem, it would be nice to have an 
> official backport of this patch in the pve kernel. 
> Anybody can do that ? (only one line of code) 
> 

A single line can also wreak havoc just fine ;-) 
But this one seems/sounds harmless, regression-wise. But it would be 
really good to first know if the patch addresses the issue at all. 

> We are trying to modify the bonding mode because the network connection seems to be unstable, 
> maybe this solves the issue. 
> 

Sounds like it's worth a shot, if you already know that the network may 
not be fully stable, as you may want to do something about that sooner 
or later anyway. 

cheers, 
Thomas 


More information about the pve-user mailing list