New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
pacific: revert backport of #45529 #46610
Conversation
This reverts commit d49ff13. which is the in-OSD part of the fix for accumulation of `dup` entries in a PG Log. Brainstorming it has brought questions on the OSD's behaviour during an upgrade if there are tons of dups in the log. What must be double-checked before bringing it back is ensuring we chunk the deletions properly to not impose OOMs / stalls in, to exemplify, RocksDB. The backport ticket is: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55989 Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Zarzynski <rzarzyns@redhat.com>
This reverts commit 1f3fede. Although the chunking in off-line `dups` trimming (via COT) seems fine, the `ceph-objectstore-tool` is a client of `trim()` of `PGLog::IndexedLog` which means than a partial revert is not possible without extensive changes. The backport ticket is: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55989 Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Zarzynski <rzarzyns@redhat.com>
@rzarzynski I don't quite understand. Does the original fix do anything wrong? |
@xiexingguo: yes, there are two problems:
A new incarnation of the off-line trimming is #46631. |
@rzarzynski Thanks!
So https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/53729 remains. What's our new plan for it? |
@xiexingguo: implement a proper chunking for |
Is it possible to keep the code in the ceph-objectstore-tool. Part of the problem here is that fact that OSD are using too much memory when the dups aren't being trimmed. We are reverting this to make sure the OSD is not going to use too much memory during the upgrade. I think there should at least b an offline way of trimming the dups. Then more time can be spent on making the trimming inside the OSD work well. Also if the revert moves forward we'd have to reopen https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55631 |
Sorry, I didn't read this. |
@rzarzynski Are the Octopus commits (PR #46253 - already merged & likely to make it to 15.2.17) going to be reverted as well? |
Hi @pponnuvel Does this PR answer you question? #46610 |
This PR (#46610) is for Pacific, right? I was checking if this will be backported to Octopus as well. I believe, there's one more point release for Octopus planned/in progress: https://www.spinics.net/lists/dev-ceph/msg04468.html |
Sorry, i meant this one 46611 |
@wvh-github Ah, right. Thanks - that does answer. Hopefully it makes to 15.2.17 too! |
This pull request can no longer be automatically merged: a rebase is needed and changes have to be manually resolved |
@rzarzynski, still this should be reverted or not after #46631 merge? |
Technically this isn't a backport but a full revert of an already merged backport.
"Backport" ticket for the sake of tracking: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55989
Contribution Guidelines
To sign and title your commits, please refer to Submitting Patches to Ceph.
If you are submitting a fix for a stable branch (e.g. "pacific"), please refer to Submitting Patches to Ceph - Backports for the proper workflow.
Checklist
Show available Jenkins commands
jenkins retest this please
jenkins test classic perf
jenkins test crimson perf
jenkins test signed
jenkins test make check
jenkins test make check arm64
jenkins test submodules
jenkins test dashboard
jenkins test dashboard cephadm
jenkins test api
jenkins test docs
jenkins render docs
jenkins test ceph-volume all
jenkins test ceph-volume tox
jenkins test windows