Hi folks,

We've seen some weird stuff recently with UFW/iptables dropping packets on our 
OSS and MDS nodes.  We are running 2.15.1.  Example:

[   69.472030] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=<snip> SRC=<snip> DST=<snip> LEN=52 
TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=58224 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=1022 DPT=988 WINDOW=510 
RES=0x00 ACK FIN URGP=0

[11777.280724] [UFW BLOCK] IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=<snip> SRC=<snip> DST=<snip> LEN=64 
TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=44206 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=988 DPT=1023 WINDOW=509 
RES=0x00 ACK URGP=0

Previously, we were only allowing 988 bidirectionally on BOTH clients and 
servers.  This was based on guidance from the Lustre manual.  From the above 
messages it appears we may need to expand that range.  This thread discusses it:
https://www.mail-archive.com/lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org/msg17229.html

Based on that thread and some code reading it appears that sans explicit 
configuration of conns_per_peer the extra ports potentially required are 
autotuning (ksocklnd_speed2cpp).  E.G., if we have a node with 50Gbps 
interface, we may need up to 3 ports open to accommodate the extra ports.  
These appear to be selected beginning at 1023 and going down as far as 512.

Questions:
1. If we do not open up more than 988, are there known performance issues for 
machines at or below say, 50Gbps?  It does seem that with these closed we don't 
have correctness or visible performance problems, so there must be some 
fallback mechanism at play.
2. Can we just open 1023 to 1021 for a 50GigE machine?  Or are there situations 
where binding might fail and the algorithm could potentially attempt to create 
sockets all the way down to 512?
3. Regardless of the answer to #2, do we need to open these ports on all client 
and server nodes, or can we get away with just server nodes?
4. Do these need to be opened just for egress from the node in question, or 
bidirectionally?

Thanks in advance!

Best,

ellis
_______________________________________________
lustre-discuss mailing list
lustre-discuss@lists.lustre.org
http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-discuss-lustre.org

Reply via email to