[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Szabo, Istvan (Agoda)]

Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If the 
failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each server, 
8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also.

Istvan Szabo
Senior Infrastructure Engineer
---
Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
---

-Original Message-
From: Dave Hall 
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
To: ceph-users 
Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?

Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor open 
attachments!


Hello,

In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it was 
suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the 
failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small cluster the 
inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.

I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define failure-domain = 
NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined manually in the same way that 
failure-domain = rack requires information about which nodes are in each rack.

Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up the 
WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool profile
is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15 failure 
domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure.

Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.

Thanks.

-Dave

--
Dave Hall
Binghamton University
kdh...@binghamton.edu
607-760-2328 (Cell)
607-777-4641 (Office)
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to 
ceph-users-le...@ceph.io


This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended 
recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright or 
other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know by 
reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy this 
message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or privilege is 
not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized disclosure of the 
message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be monitored to ensure 
compliance with company policies, to protect the company's interests and to 
remove potential malware. Electronic messages may be intercepted, amended, lost 
or deleted, or contain viruses.
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io

[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Dave Hall]

Istvan,

I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially
with EC pools.  We are accepting this risk to lower the financial barrier
to entry.

In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the
greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD nodes
and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures.   Since we have
multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might
want to get Ceph to 'map' against that.  In a way, NVMe devices are our
'nodes' at the current size of our cluster.

-Dave

--
Dave Hall
Binghamton University

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <
istvan.sz...@agoda.com> wrote:

> Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If
> the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each
> server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also.
>
> Istvan Szabo
> Senior Infrastructure Engineer
> ---
> Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
> e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
> ---
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Hall 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
> To: ceph-users 
> Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?
>
> Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links nor
> open attachments!
> 
>
> Hello,
>
> In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it
> was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the
> failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small cluster
> the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.
>
> I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define
> failure-domain = NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined manually
> in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about which
> nodes are in each rack.
>
> Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up the
> WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
> Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
> devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool profile
> is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15
> failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure.
>
> Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> Dave Hall
> Binghamton University
> kdh...@binghamton.edu
> 607-760-2328 (Cell)
> 607-777-4641 (Office)
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
> email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>
> 
> This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by copyright
> or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us know
> by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy
> this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or
> privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized
> disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
> monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the
> company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages
> may be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
>
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io

[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Steven Pine]

One potential issue is maintenance after a nvme failure. Depending on how
the hardware is configured, you will need to bring the whole node down to
replace the failed nvme, which could cause PG to become read only if you
are close to your min threshold. I think the additional risk is not worth
it, but if you move ahead anyway you should also either not use EC, or have
a much higher EC ratio, 8-3 or 8-4, or since you have only 48 HDDs, a lower
count, 6-3, might be better.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:03 AM Dave Hall  wrote:

> Istvan,
>
> I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially
> with EC pools.  We are accepting this risk to lower the financial barrier
> to entry.
>
> In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the
> greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD nodes
> and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures.   Since we have
> multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might
> want to get Ceph to 'map' against that.  In a way, NVMe devices are our
> 'nodes' at the current size of our cluster.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> Dave Hall
> Binghamton University
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <
> istvan.sz...@agoda.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If
> > the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each
> > server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also.
> >
> > Istvan Szabo
> > Senior Infrastructure Engineer
> > ---
> > Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
> > e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
> > ---
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dave Hall 
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
> > To: ceph-users 
> > Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?
> >
> > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links
> nor
> > open attachments!
> > 
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it
> > was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the
> > failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small
> cluster
> > the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.
> >
> > I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define
> > failure-domain = NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined manually
> > in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about
> which
> > nodes are in each rack.
> >
> > Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up the
> > WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
> > Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
> > devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool profile
> > is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15
> > failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure.
> >
> > Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > --
> > Dave Hall
> > Binghamton University
> > kdh...@binghamton.edu
> > 607-760-2328 (Cell)
> > 607-777-4641 (Office)
> > ___
> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
> > email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
> >
> > 
> > This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended
> > recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by
> copyright
> > or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us
> know
> > by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy
> > this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or
> > privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized
> > disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
> > monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the
> > company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages
> > may be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
> >
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>


-- 
Steven Pine

*E * steven.p...@webair.com  |  *P * 516.938.4100 x
*Webair* | 501 Franklin Avenue Suite 200, Garden City NY, 11530
webair.com
[image: Facebook icon]   [image:
Twitter icon]  [image: Linkedin icon]

NOTICE: This electronic mail message and all attachments transmitted with
it are intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain legally
privileged proprietary and confidential information. If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, or if you are an

[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Christian Wuerdig]

For EC 8+2 you can get away with 5 hosts by ensuring each host gets 2
shards similar to this:
https://ceph.io/planet/erasure-code-on-small-clusters/
If a host dies/goes down you can still recover all data (although at that
stage your cluster is no longer available for client io).
You shouldn't just consider failure but also maintenance scenarios which
will require a node to offline for some time. In particular a ceph upgrades
can take some time - especially if something goes wrong. You have no
breathing room left at that stage and your cluster will be dead until all
nodes are up again


On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 02:03, Dave Hall  wrote:

> Istvan,
>
> I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially
> with EC pools.  We are accepting this risk to lower the financial barrier
> to entry.
>
> In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the
> greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD nodes
> and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures.   Since we have
> multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might
> want to get Ceph to 'map' against that.  In a way, NVMe devices are our
> 'nodes' at the current size of our cluster.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> Dave Hall
> Binghamton University
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <
> istvan.sz...@agoda.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If
> > the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each
> > server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also.
> >
> > Istvan Szabo
> > Senior Infrastructure Engineer
> > ---
> > Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
> > e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
> > ---
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dave Hall 
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
> > To: ceph-users 
> > Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?
> >
> > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links
> nor
> > open attachments!
> > 
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it
> > was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the
> > failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small
> cluster
> > the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.
> >
> > I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define
> > failure-domain = NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined manually
> > in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about
> which
> > nodes are in each rack.
> >
> > Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up the
> > WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
> > Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
> > devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool profile
> > is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15
> > failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure.
> >
> > Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > --
> > Dave Hall
> > Binghamton University
> > kdh...@binghamton.edu
> > 607-760-2328 (Cell)
> > 607-777-4641 (Office)
> > ___
> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
> > email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
> >
> > 
> > This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended
> > recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by
> copyright
> > or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us
> know
> > by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy
> > this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or
> > privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized
> > disclosure of the message. All messages sent to and from Agoda may be
> > monitored to ensure compliance with company policies, to protect the
> > company's interests and to remove potential malware. Electronic messages
> > may be intercepted, amended, lost or deleted, or contain viruses.
> >
> ___
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>
___
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io

[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Steven Pine]

Setting domain failure on a per node basis will prevent data loss in the
case of an nvme failure, you would need multiple nvme failures across
different hosts. If data loss is the primary concern then again, you will
want a higher EC ratio, 6:3 or 6:4 but with only 6 osds, then 4:2 or even
3:3, or skip EC altogether and use 3x replication, that is likely the
safest and best tested use case. You can also take backups of your ceph
cluster and send it elsewhere, a tool like backy2 can do this with somewhat
minimal setup.

but if you have some magical insistence on using the setup you had already
determined prior to asking the mailing list then go ahead, and good luck.

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:56 PM Dave Hall  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> While I appreciate and acknowledge the concerns regarding host failure and
> maintenance shutdowns, our main concern at this time is data loss.  Our use
> case at this time allows for suspension of client I/0 and/or for full
> cluster shutdown for maintenance, but loss of data would be catastrophic.
> It seems that with my current configuration an NVMe failure could cause
> data loss unless the shards are organized to survive this.
>
> So my question is not whether this is prudent, but actually whether this is
> possible, and if anybody could point to hints on how to implement it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Dave
>
> --
> Dave Hall
> Binghamton University
> kdh...@binghamton.edu
> 607-760-2328 (Cell)
> 607-777-4641 (Office)
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:28 PM Christian Wuerdig <
> christian.wuer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For EC 8+2 you can get away with 5 hosts by ensuring each host gets 2
> > shards similar to this:
> > https://ceph.io/planet/erasure-code-on-small-clusters/
> > If a host dies/goes down you can still recover all data (although at that
> > stage your cluster is no longer available for client io).
> > You shouldn't just consider failure but also maintenance scenarios which
> > will require a node to offline for some time. In particular a ceph
> upgrades
> > can take some time - especially if something goes wrong. You have no
> > breathing room left at that stage and your cluster will be dead until all
> > nodes are up again
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 02:03, Dave Hall  wrote:
> >
> >> Istvan,
> >>
> >> I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially
> >> with EC pools.  We are accepting this risk to lower the financial
> barrier
> >> to entry.
> >>
> >> In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the
> >> greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD
> nodes
> >> and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures.   Since we have
> >> multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might
> >> want to get Ceph to 'map' against that.  In a way, NVMe devices are our
> >> 'nodes' at the current size of our cluster.
> >>
> >> -Dave
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dave Hall
> >> Binghamton University
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <
> >> istvan.sz...@agoda.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects.
> If
> >> > the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in
> each
> >> > server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server
> also.
> >> >
> >> > Istvan Szabo
> >> > Senior Infrastructure Engineer
> >> > ---
> >> > Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
> >> > e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
> >> > ---
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: Dave Hall 
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
> >> > To: ceph-users 
> >> > Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?
> >> >
> >> > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links
> >> nor
> >> > open attachments!
> >> > 
> >> >
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs,
> it
> >> > was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the
> >> > failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small
> >> cluster
> >> > the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define
> >> > failure-domain = NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined
> >> manually
> >> > in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about
> >> which
> >> > nodes are in each rack.
> >> >
> >> > Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up
> >> the
> >> > WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
> >> > Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
> >> > devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool
> profile
> >> > is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across
> 15
> >> > failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failu

[ceph-users] Re: Failure Domain = NVMe?

[Dave Hall]

Hello,

While I appreciate and acknowledge the concerns regarding host failure and
maintenance shutdowns, our main concern at this time is data loss.  Our use
case at this time allows for suspension of client I/0 and/or for full
cluster shutdown for maintenance, but loss of data would be catastrophic.
It seems that with my current configuration an NVMe failure could cause
data loss unless the shards are organized to survive this.

So my question is not whether this is prudent, but actually whether this is
possible, and if anybody could point to hints on how to implement it.

Thanks.

-Dave

--
Dave Hall
Binghamton University
kdh...@binghamton.edu
607-760-2328 (Cell)
607-777-4641 (Office)


On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:28 PM Christian Wuerdig <
christian.wuer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For EC 8+2 you can get away with 5 hosts by ensuring each host gets 2
> shards similar to this:
> https://ceph.io/planet/erasure-code-on-small-clusters/
> If a host dies/goes down you can still recover all data (although at that
> stage your cluster is no longer available for client io).
> You shouldn't just consider failure but also maintenance scenarios which
> will require a node to offline for some time. In particular a ceph upgrades
> can take some time - especially if something goes wrong. You have no
> breathing room left at that stage and your cluster will be dead until all
> nodes are up again
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 at 02:03, Dave Hall  wrote:
>
>> Istvan,
>>
>> I agree that there is always risk with failure-domain < node, especially
>> with EC pools.  We are accepting this risk to lower the financial barrier
>> to entry.
>>
>> In our minds, we have good power protection and new hardware, so the
>> greatest immediate risks for our smaller cluster (approaching 6 OSD nodes
>> and 48 HDDs) are NVMe write exhaustion and HDD failures.   Since we have
>> multiple OSDs sharing a single NVMe device it occurs to me that we might
>> want to get Ceph to 'map' against that.  In a way, NVMe devices are our
>> 'nodes' at the current size of our cluster.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>> --
>> Dave Hall
>> Binghamton University
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:41 PM Szabo, Istvan (Agoda) <
>> istvan.sz...@agoda.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't forget if you have server failure you might loose many objects. If
>> > the failure domain is osd, it means let's say you have 12 drives in each
>> > server, 8+2 EC in an unlucky situation can be located in 1 server also.
>> >
>> > Istvan Szabo
>> > Senior Infrastructure Engineer
>> > ---
>> > Agoda Services Co., Ltd.
>> > e: istvan.sz...@agoda.com
>> > ---
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: Dave Hall 
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:42 PM
>> > To: ceph-users 
>> > Subject: [ceph-users] Failure Domain = NVMe?
>> >
>> > Email received from outside the company. If in doubt don't click links
>> nor
>> > open attachments!
>> > 
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > In some documentation I was reading last night about laying out OSDs, it
>> > was suggested that if more that one OSD uses the same NVMe drive, the
>> > failure-domain should probably be set to node. However, for a small
>> cluster
>> > the inclination is to use EC-pools and failure-domain = OSD.
>> >
>> > I was wondering if there is a middle ground - could we define
>> > failure-domain = NVMe?  I think the map would need to be defined
>> manually
>> > in the same way that failure-domain = rack requires information about
>> which
>> > nodes are in each rack.
>> >
>> > Example:  My latest OSD nodes have 8 HDDs and 3 U.2 NVMe.  I'd set up
>> the
>> > WAL/DB for with HDDs per OSD  (wasted space on the 3rd NVMe).
>> > Across all my OSD nodes I will have 8 HDDs and either 2 or 3 NVMe
>> > devices per node - 15 total NVMe devices.   My preferred EC-pool profile
>> > is 8+2.  It seems that this profile could be safely dispersed across 15
>> > failure domains, resulting in protection against NVMe failure.
>> >
>> > Please let me know if this is worth pursuing.
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > -Dave
>> >
>> > --
>> > Dave Hall
>> > Binghamton University
>> > kdh...@binghamton.edu
>> > 607-760-2328 (Cell)
>> > 607-777-4641 (Office)
>> > ___
>> > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an
>> > email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>> >
>> > 
>> > This message is confidential and is for the sole use of the intended
>> > recipient(s). It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by
>> copyright
>> > or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake please let us
>> know
>> > by reply email and delete it from your system. It is prohibited to copy
>> > this message or disclose its content to anyone. Any confidentiality or
>> > privilege is not waived or lost by any mistaken delivery or unauthorized
>> > disclosure of the message. All mess