Hi Nick,

For brevity, I didn't detail all of the commands I issued.  Looking back 
through my command history, I can confirm that I did explicitly set cache-mode 
to writeback (and later reset it to forward to try flush-and-evict).  Question: 
how did you determine that your cache-mode was not writeback?  I'll do that, 
just to  confirm that this is the problem, then reestablish the cache-mode.

Thank you very much for your assistance!

-don-

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Fisk [mailto:n...@fisk.me.uk] 
Sent: 30 April, 2015 10:38
To: Don Doerner; ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
Subject: RE: RHEL7/HAMMER cache tier doesn't flush or evict?
Sensitivity: Personal

Hi Don,

I experienced the same thing a couple of days ago on Hammer. On investigation 
the cache mode wasn't set to writeback even though I'm sure it accepted the 
command successfully when I set the pool up.

Could you reapply the cache mode writeback command and see if that makes a 
difference?

Nick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com] On Behalf 
> Of Don Doerner
> Sent: 30 April 2015 17:57
> To: ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> Subject: [ceph-users] RHEL7/HAMMER cache tier doesn't flush or evict?
> Sensitivity: Personal
> 
> All,
> 
> Synopsis: I can't get cache tiering to work in HAMMER on RHEL7.
> 
> Process:
> 1. Fresh install of HAMMER on RHEL7 went well.
> 2. Crush map adapted to provide two "root" level resources a.  
> "ctstorage", to use as a cache tier based on very high-performance,
high
> IOPS SSD (intrinsic journal).  2 OSDs.
> b. "ecstorage", to use as an erasure-coded poolbased on 
> low-performance, cost effective storage (extrinsic journal).  12 OSDs.
> 3. Established a pool "ctpool", 32 PGs on ctstorage (pool size = 
> min_size
= 1).
> Ran a quick RADOS bench test, all worked as expected.  Cleaned up.
> 4. Established a pool "ecpool", 256 PGs on ecstorage (5+3 profile).  
> Ran a quick RADOS bench test, all worked as expected.  Cleaned up.
> 5. Ensured that both pools were empty (i.e., "rados ls" shows no 
> objects) 6. Put the cache tier on the erasure coded storage (one Bloom 
> hit set, interval 900 seconds), set up the overlay.  Used defaults for 
> flushing and eviction.  No errors.
> 7. Started a 3600-second write test to ecpool.
> 
> Objects piled up in ctpool (as expected) - went past the 40% mark (as 
> expected), then past the 80% mark (unexpected), then ran into the wall 
> (95% full - very unexpected).  Using "rados df", I can see that the 
> cache
tier is
> full (duh!) but not one single object lives in the ecpool.  Nothing 
> was
ever
> flushed, nothing was ever evicted.  Thought I might be misreading 
> that, so
I
> went back to SAR data that I captured during the test: the SSDs were 
> the
only
> [ceph] devices that sustained I/O.
> 
> I based this experiment on another (much more successful) experiment 
> that I performed using GIANT (.1) on RHEL7 a couple of weeks ago 
> (wherein I used RAM as a cache tier); that all worked.  It seems there 
> are at least
three
> possibilities.
> . I forgot a critical step this time around.
> . The steps needed for a cache tier in HAMMER are different than the 
> steps needed in GIANT (and different than the documentation online).
> . There is a problem with HAMMER in the area of cache tier.
> 
> Has anyone successfully deployed cache-tiering in HAMMER?  Did you 
> have to do anything unusual?  Do you see any steps that I missed?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -don-
> 
> ________________________________________
> The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. 
> Any disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential 
> information
is not
> permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by
Quantum.
> Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, 
> including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered 
> through anti
virus
> and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to comply 
> with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is 
> not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the 
> substance of this communication or for any delay in its receipt.




_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to