From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: Massive NFS problems on large cluster with large number of mounts Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:26:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20080701182629.GC21807@fieldses.org> References: <4869E8AB.4060905@aei.mpg.de> <20080701182250.GB21807@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Henning Fehrmann , Steffen Grunewald To: Carsten Aulbert Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:41923 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752547AbYGAS0a (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jul 2008 14:26:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080701182250.GB21807@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 02:22:50PM -0400, bfields wrote: > On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 10:19:55AM +0200, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > > Hi all (now to the right email list), > >=20 > > We are running a large cluster and do a lot of cross-mounting betwe= en > > the nodes. To get this running we are running a lot of nfsd (196) a= nd > > use mountd with 64 threads, just in case we get a massive number of= hits > > onto a single node. All this is on Debian Etch with a recent 2.6.24 > > kernel using autofs4 at the moment to do the automounts. >=20 > I'm slightly confused--the above is all about server configuration, b= ut > the below seems to describe only client problems? >=20 > >=20 > > When running these two not nice scripts: > >=20 > > $ cat test_mount > > #!/bin/sh > >=20 > > n_node=3D1000 > >=20 > > for i in `seq 1 $n_node`;do > > n=3D`echo $RANDOM%1342+10001 | bc| sed -e "s/1/n/"` > > $HOME/bin/mount.sh $n& > > echo -n . > > done > >=20 > > $ cat mount.sh > > #!/bin/sh > >=20 > > dir=3D"/distributed/spray/data/EatH/S5R1" > >=20 > > ping -c1 -w1 $1 > /dev/null&& file=3D"/atlas/node/$1$dir/"`ls -f > > /atlas/node/$1$dir/|head -n 50 | tail -n 1` > > md5sum ${file} > >=20 > > With that we encounter different problems: > >=20 > > Running this gives this in syslog: > > Jul 1 07:37:19 n1312 rpc.idmapd[2309]: nfsopen: > > open(/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/nfs/clntaa58/idmap): Too many open fil= es > > Jul 1 07:37:19 n1312 rpc.idmapd[2309]: nfsopen: > > open(/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/nfs/clntaa58/idmap): Too many open fil= es > > Jul 1 07:37:19 n1312 rpc.idmapd[2309]: nfsopen: > > open(/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/nfs/clntaa5e/idmap): Too many open fil= es > > Jul 1 07:37:19 n1312 rpc.idmapd[2309]: nfsopen: > > open(/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/nfs/clntaa5e/idmap): Too many open fil= es > > Jul 1 07:37:19 n1312 rpc.idmapd[2309]: nfsopen: > > open(/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs/nfs/clntaa9c/idmap): Too many open fil= es > >=20 > > Which is not surprising to me. However, there are a few things I'm > > wondering about. > >=20 > > (1) All our mounts use nfsvers=3D3 why is rpc.idmapd involved at al= l? >=20 > Are there actually files named "idmap" in those directories? (Looks = to > me like they're only created in the v4 case, so I assume those open > calls would return ENOENT if they didn't return ENFILE....) >=20 > > (2) Why is this daemon growing so extremely large? > > # ps aux|grep rpc.idmapd > > root 2309 0.1 16.2 2037152 1326944 ? Ss Jun30 1:24 > > /usr/sbin/rpc.idmapd >=20 > I think rpc.idmapd has some state for each directory whether they're = for > a v4 client or not, since it's using dnotify to watch for an "idmap" > file to appear in each one. The above shows about 2k per mount? Sorry, no, if ps reports those fields in kilobytes, then that's megabytes per mount, so yes there's clearly a bug here that needs fixing. --b. >=20 > --b. >=20 > > NOTE: We are now disabling this one, but still it wouldbe nice to > > understand why there seem to be a memory leak. > >=20 > > (3) The script maxes out at about 340 concurrent mounts, any idea h= ow to > > increase this number? We are already running all servers with the > > insecure option, thus low ports should not be a restriction. > > (4) After running this script /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are out of > > sync. Ian Kent from autofs fame suggested a broken local mount > > implementation which does not lock mtab well enough. Any idee about= that? > >=20 > > We are currently testing autofs5 and this is not giving these messa= ges, > > but still we are not using high/unprivilidged ports. > >=20 > > TIA for any help you might give us. > >=20 > > Cheers > >=20 > > Carsten > >=20 > > --=20 > > Dr. Carsten Aulbert - Max Planck Institut f=C3=BCr Gravitationsphys= ik > > Callinstra=C3=9Fe 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany > > Fon: +49 511 762 17185, Fax: +49 511 762 17193 > > http://www.top500.org/system/9234 | http://www.top500.org/connfam/6= /list/31 > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs= " in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html