Bug 763206 (GLUSTER-1474) - Upgrade to 3.0.5 from 2.0.8 degrades self-heal and apache performance significantly
Summary: Upgrade to 3.0.5 from 2.0.8 degrades self-heal and apache performance signifi...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: GLUSTER-1474
Product: GlusterFS
Classification: Community
Component: core
Version: 3.0.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
urgent
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Amar Tumballi
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-08-29 16:41 UTC by Chida
Modified: 2015-12-01 16:45 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Chida 2010-08-29 14:55:32 UTC
some errors in the logs..

E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8038: failed to submit. op= 14, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8039: failed to submit. op= 25, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8041: failed to submit. op= 14, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8042: failed to submit. op= 25, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8043: failed to submit. op= 25, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8044: failed to submit. op= 14, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8047: failed to submit. op= 14, type= 4
[2010-08-29 13:30:06] E [server-protocol.c:339:protocol_server_reply] protocol/server: frame 8048: failed to submit. op= 14, type= 4

Comment 1 Chida 2010-08-29 16:41:19 UTC
An upgrade from 3.0.5 from 2.0.8 has worsened apache reponse time on an vaerga from 500ms to 2 seconds. will update logs/volume files soon.

Comment 2 Amar Tumballi 2010-08-31 14:01:56 UTC
Chida,

I heard this is happening because of some script which was killing the client mount process. Should I still treat this bug as critical severity ? Considering the things have settled down there, we can mark this invalid too.. What do you think?

-Amar

Comment 3 Sachidananda Urs 2010-08-31 14:22:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Chida,
> 
> I heard this is happening because of some script which was killing the client
> mount process. Should I still treat this bug as critical severity ? Considering
> the things have settled down there, we can mark this invalid too.. What do you
> think?
> 

We have another migration over the weekend. Keep this open for a while, I will mark as invalid upon the results over the weekend. If the pattern re-appears I will let the engineering know.

Comment 4 Amar Tumballi 2010-09-13 06:40:55 UTC
Sacchi, Does this bug hold good now? Is the migration complete ?

Comment 5 Sachidananda Urs 2010-09-13 06:46:27 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Sacchi, Does this bug hold good now? Is the migration complete ?

Amar, you can close this bug. We figured that the root cause for this might be the inode size in the file system.


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