Open Stack

Hi Eugen,

You saved my life!!!!!! all my vms up without any filesystem error :)

This is the correct command to remove the lock.

$ rbd lock rm -p vms ec6044e6-2231-4906-9e30-1e2e72573e64_disk "auto
139643345791728" client.1211875



On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:06 AM Satish Patel <satish.txt at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Eugen,
>
> I am playing with less important machine and i did following
>
> I shutdown VM but still down following lock
>
> root at ceph1:~# rbd lock list --image
> ec6044e6-2231-4906-9e30-1e2e72573e64_disk -p vms
> There is 1 exclusive lock on this image.
> Locker          ID                    Address
> client.1211875  auto 139643345791728  192.168.3.12:0/2259335316
>
> root at ceph1:~# ceph osd blacklist add 192.168.3.12:0/2259335316
> blocklisting 192.168.3.12:0/2259335316 until
> 2023-02-17T16:00:59.399775+0000 (3600 sec)
>
> Still I can see it in the following lock list. Am I missing something?
>
> root at ceph1:~# rbd lock list --image
> ec6044e6-2231-4906-9e30-1e2e72573e64_disk -p vms
> There is 1 exclusive lock on this image.
> Locker          ID                    Address
> client.1211875  auto 139643345791728  192.168.3.12:0/2259335316
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 2:39 AM Eugen Block <eblock at nde.ag> wrote:
>
>> The lock is aquired automatically, you don't need to create one. I'm
>> curious why you have that many blacklist entries, maybe that is indeed
>> the issue here (locks are not removed). I would shutdown the corrupted
>> VM and see if the compute node still has a lock on that image, because
>> after shutdown it should remove the lock (automatically). If there's
>> still a watcher or lock on that image after shutdown (rbd status
>> vms/55dbf40b-0a6a-4bab-b3a5-b4bb74e963af_disk) you can try to
>> blacklist the client with:
>>
>> # ceph osd blacklist add client.<ID>
>>
>> Then check the status again, if no watchers are present, boot the VM.
>>
>>
>> Zitat von Satish Patel <satish.txt at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Eugen,
>> >
>> > This is what I did, let me know if I missed anything.
>> >
>> > root at ceph1:~# ceph osd blacklist ls
>> > 192.168.3.12:0/0 2023-02-17T04:48:54.381763+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:0/753370860 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:0/2833179066 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:0/1812968936 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:6824/2057987683 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:0/2756666482 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:0/1646520197 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:6825/2057987683 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:0/526748613 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:6815/2454821797 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > 192.168.3.22:0/288537807 2023-02-17T04:47:08.185434+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:0/4161448504 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > 192.168.3.21:6824/2454821797 2023-02-17T05:16:23.939511+0000
>> > listed 13 entries
>> >
>> > root at ceph1:~# rbd lock list --image
>> > 55dbf40b-0a6a-4bab-b3a5-b4bb74e963af_disk -p vms
>> > There is 1 exclusive lock on this image.
>> > Locker         ID                    Address
>> > client.268212  auto 139971105131968  192.168.3.12:0/1649312807
>> >
>> > root at ceph1:~# ceph osd blacklist rm 192.168.3.12:0/1649312807
>> > 192.168.3.12:0/1649312807 isn't blocklisted
>> >
>> > How do I create a lock?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:45 AM Eugen Block <eblock at nde.ag> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In addition to Sean's response, this has been asked multiple times,
>> >> e.g. [1]. You could check if your hypervisors gave up the lock on the
>> >> RBDs or if they are still locked (rbd status <pool>/<image>), in that
>> >> case you might need to blacklist the clients and see if that resolves
>> >> anything. Do you have regular snapshots (or backups) to be able to
>> >> rollback in case of a curruption?
>> >>
>> >> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg45937.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Zitat von Sean Mooney <smooney at redhat.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > On Thu, 2023-02-16 at 09:56 -0500, Satish Patel wrote:
>> >> >> Folks,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am running a small 3 node compute/controller with 3 node ceph
>> storage
>> >> in
>> >> >> my lab. Yesterday, because of a power outage all my nodes went down.
>> >> After
>> >> >> reboot of all nodes ceph seems to show good health and no error (in
>> ceph
>> >> >> -s).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When I started using the existing VM I noticed the following errors.
>> >> Seems
>> >> >> like data loss. This is a lab machine and has zero activity on vms
>> but
>> >> >> still loses data and the file system corrupt. Is this normal ?
>> >> > if the vm/cluster hard crashes due to the power cut yes it can.
>> >> > personally i have hit this more often with XFS then ext4 but i have
>> >> > seen it with both.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am not using eraser coding, does that help in this matter?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> blk_update_request: I/O error, dev sda, sector 233000 op 0x1:
>> (WRITE)
>> >> flags
>> >> >> 0x800 phys_seg 8 prio class 0
>> >> >
>> >> > you will proably need to rescue the isntance and repair the
>> >> > filesystem of each vm with fsck
>> >> > or similar. so boot with recue image -> repair filestem -> unrescue
>> >> > -> hardreboot/start vm if needed
>> >> >
>> >> > you might be able to mitigate this somewhat by disableing disk
>> >> > cacheing at teh qemu level but
>> >> > that will reduce performance. ceph recommenes that you use
>> >> > virtio-scis fo the device model and
>> >> > writeback cach mode. we generally recommend that too however you can
>> >> > use the disk_cachemodes option to
>> >> > chage that.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/configuration/config.html#libvirt.disk_cachemodes
>> >> >
>> >> > [libvirt]
>> >> > disk_cachemodes=file=none,block=none,network=none
>> >> >
>> >> > this curreption may also have happend on the cecph cluter side.
>> >> > they have some options that can help prevent that via journaling
>> wirtes
>> >> >
>> >> > if you can afford it i would get even a small UPS to allow a
>> >> > graceful shutdown if you have future powercuts
>> >> > to aovid dataloss issues.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20230217/f493dfb5/attachment-0001.htm>