Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
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:
Mohit, can I mark this as a duplicate of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1785577?
Yes, you can mark it duplicate. We will backport the fix in RHGS 3.5.2
(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
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