Single node causing cluster to be extremely slow (leveldb)

Martin May martin at push.io
Fri Jan 10 09:41:02 EST 2014


Hi Matthew,

We applied this change to node 4, started it up, and it seems much happier (no crazy CPU). We’re going to keep an eye on it for a little while, and then apply this setting to all the other nodes as well.

Is there anything we can do to prevent this scenario in the future, or should the settings you suggested take care of that?

Thanks,
Martin

On Jan 10, 2014, at 6:42 AM, Matthew Von-Maszewski <matthewv at basho.com> wrote:

> Sean,
> 
> I did some math based upon the app.config and LOG files.  I am guessing that you are starting to thrash your file cache.
> 
> This theory should be easy to prove / disprove.  On that one node, change the cache_size and max_open_files to:
> 
> cache_size 68435456
> max_open_files 425
> 
> If I am correct, the node should come up and not cause problems.  We are trading block cache space for file cache space.  A miss in the file cache is far more costly than a miss in the block cache.
> 
> Let me know how this works for you.  It is possible that we might want to talk about raising your block size slightly to reduce file cache overhead.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On Jan 9, 2014, at 9:33 PM, Sean McKibben <graphex at graphex.com> wrote:
> 
>> We have a 5 node cluster using elevelDB (1.4.2) and 2i, and this afternoon it started responding extremely slowly. CPU on member 4 was extremely high and we restarted that process, but it didn’t help. We temporarily shut down member 4 and cluster speed returned to normal, but as soon as we boot member 4 back up, the cluster performance goes to shit.
>> 
>> We’ve run in to this before but were able to just start with a fresh set of data after wiping machines as it was before we migrated to this bare-metal cluster. Now it is causing some pretty significant issues and we’re not sure what we can do to get it back to normal, many of our queues are filling up and we’ll probably have to take node 4 off again just so we can provide a regular quality of service.
>> 
>> We’ve turned off AAE on node 4 but it hasn’t helped. We have some transfers that need to happen but they are going very slowly.
>> 
>> 'riak-admin top’ on node 4 reports this:
>> Load:  cpu       610               Memory:  total      503852    binary     231544
>>       procs     804                        processes  179850    code        11588
>>       runq      134                        atom          533    ets          4581
>> 
>> Pid                 Name or Initial Func         Time       Reds     Memory       MsgQ Current Function
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <6175.29048.3>      proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     462231   51356760          0 mochijson2:json_bin_is_safe/1
>> <6175.12281.6>      proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     307183   64195856          1 gen_fsm:loop/7
>> <6175.1581.5>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     286143   41085600          0 mochijson2:json_bin_is_safe/1
>> <6175.6659.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     281845      13752          0 sext:decode_binary/3
>> <6175.6666.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     209113      21648          0 sext:decode_binary/3
>> <6175.12219.6>      proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     168832   16829200          0 riak_client:wait_for_query_results/4
>> <6175.8403.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     133333      13880          1 eleveldb:iterator_move/2
>> <6175.8813.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     119548       9000          1 eleveldb:iterator/3
>> <6175.8411.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     115759      34472          0 riak_kv_vnode:'-result_fun_ack/2-fun-0-'
>> <6175.5679.0>       proc_lib:init_p/5             '-'     109577       8952          0 riak_kv_vnode:'-result_fun_ack/2-fun-0-'
>> Output server crashed: connection_lost
>> 
>> Based on that, is there anything anyone can think to do to try to bring performance back in to the land of usability? Does this thing appear to be something that may have been resolved in 1.4.6 or 1.4.7?
>> 
>> Only thing we can think of at this point might be to remove or force remove the member and join in a new freshly built one, but last time we attempted that (on a different cluster) our secondary indexes got irreparably damaged and only regained consistency when we copied every individual key to (this) new cluster! Not a good experience :( but i’m hopeful that 1.4.6 may have addressed some of our issues.
>> 
>> Any help is appreciated.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Sean McKibben
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> riak-users mailing list
>> riak-users at lists.basho.com
>> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> riak-users mailing list
> riak-users at lists.basho.com
> http://lists.basho.com/mailman/listinfo/riak-users_lists.basho.com





More information about the riak-users mailing list