Bug 1786516 - on a brickmux setup glusterd consumes very high memory with SSL enabled when compared without SSL enablement (dup of bug 1785577 )
Summary: on a brickmux setup glusterd consumes very high memory with SSL enabled when ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Gluster Storage
Classification: Red Hat Storage
Component: glusterd
Version: rhgs-3.5
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
urgent
Target Milestone: ---
: RHGS 3.5.z Batch Update 3
Assignee: Mohit Agrawal
QA Contact: Sayalee
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-12-26 04:21 UTC by Nag Pavan Chilakam
Modified: 2020-12-17 04:51 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version: glusterfs-6.0-38
Doc Type: No Doc Update
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-17 04:50:48 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2020:5603 0 None None None 2020-12-17 04:51:35 UTC

Description Nag Pavan Chilakam 2019-12-26 04:21:35 UTC
Description of problem:
================
on a brickmux setup with SSL enabled glusterd consumes very high memory when compared with a non-SSL setup



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
=============
6.0.25


How reproducible:
============
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.create a brick mux setup
2. create a mix of  1x3 or arbiter volumes of ~500 in total
3. check glusterd memory consumption
compare it with same test but with SSL enabled

Actual results:
=============
it can be seen that with SSL enabled glusterd consumed about 7.2GB memory when compared to non-ssl of only 260MB.
Also note that this was with SSL enabled setup hosting only ~550 volumes while non-ssl was hosting 999 volumes.
That is 13.45MB per volume with SSL enabled vs about 0.5 MB per volume with SSL disabled ie >25 times



with SSL enabled:
[root@rhs-arch-srv1 ~]# top -n 1 -b|grep gluster
  655 root      20   0   37.6g   2.0g   5700 S  16.7 12.7 196:16.24 glusterfsd
  521 root      20   0   38.0g   1.4g   5608 S   0.0  9.2 193:10.75 glusterfsd
20112 root      20   0   17.6g 324004   5556 S   0.0  2.0  38:01.86 glusterfsd
23368 root      20   0   29.8g 958612   4152 S   0.0  5.9  21:20.04 glusterfs
32424 root      20   0   10.2g   7.2g   6356 S   0.0 46.4   9:08.94 glusterd
[root@rhs-arch-srv1 ~]# rpm -qa|gre^C
[root@rhs-arch-srv1 ~]# gluster v list|wc -l
548




with SSL disabled (999 vols created)
[root@rhsqa1 ~]# top -n 1 -b|grep gluster
 1862 root      20   0   34.0g   3.3g   4732 S  17.6  5.3 181:25.45 glusterfsd
15820 root      20   0   33.9g   3.3g   4732 S   5.9  5.3 182:40.73 glusterfsd
10747 root      20   0  722460 257860   5432 S   0.0  0.4  15:48.79 glusterd
10889 root      20   0   33.5g   2.9g   4872 S   0.0  4.7 189:51.47 glusterfsd
17425 root      20   0   33.7g   3.1g   4776 S   0.0  4.9 185:16.78 glusterfsd
19339 root      20   0   37.0g   1.7g   3312 S   0.0  2.7  29:57.48 glusterfs
[root@rhsqa1 ~]# 
[root@rhsqa1 ~]# gluster v list|wc -l
999



Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Sanju 2019-12-26 05:32:42 UTC
Mohit, can I mark this as a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785577?

Comment 2 Mohit Agrawal 2019-12-26 06:16:16 UTC
Yes, you can mark it duplicate.
We will backport the fix in RHGS 3.5.2

Comment 5 Nag Pavan Chilakam 2019-12-26 08:36:54 UTC
(In reply to Sanju from comment #1)
> Mohit, can I mark this as a duplicate of
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785577?

Let us not mark dup, as it would be easier to test and track glustered and glusterfsd behavior seperately

Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2020-12-17 04:50:48 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (glusterfs bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:5603


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.