Thread

  1. failures on machines using jfs

    Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> — 2004-01-07T23:06:08Z

    Hi all,
    
    Chris Browne (one of my colleagues here) has posted some tests in the
    past indicating that jfs may be the fastest filesystem for Postgres
    use on Linux.
    
    We have lately had a couple of cases where machines either locked up,
    slowed down to the point of complete unusability, or died completely
    while using jfs.  We are _not_ sure that jfs is in fact the culprit. 
    In one case, a kernel panic appeared to be referring to the jfs
    kernel module, but I can't be sure as I lost the output immediately
    thereafter.  Yesterday, we had a problem of data corruption on a
    failed jfs volume.
    
    None of this is to say that jfs is in fact to blame, nor even that,
    if it is, it does not have something to do with the age of our
    installations, &c. (these are all RH 8).  In fact, I suspect hardware
    in both cases.  But I thought I'd mention it just in case other
    people are seeing strange behaviour, on the principle of "better
    safe than sorry."
    
    A
    -- 
    ----
    Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
    Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
    <andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                             +1 416 646 3304 x110
    
    
    
  2. Re: failures on machines using jfs

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2004-01-08T18:52:40Z

    Andrew,
    
    > None of this is to say that jfs is in fact to blame, nor even that,
    > if it is, it does not have something to do with the age of our
    > installations, &c. (these are all RH 8).  In fact, I suspect hardware
    > in both cases.  But I thought I'd mention it just in case other
    > people are seeing strange behaviour, on the principle of "better
    > safe than sorry."
    
    Always useful.    Actually, I just fielded on IRC a report of poor I/O 
    utilization with XFS during checkpointing.    Not sure if the problem is XFS 
    or PostgreSQL, but the fact that XFS (alone among filesystems) does its own 
    cache management instead of using the kernel cache makes me suspicious.
    
    -- 
    -Josh Berkus
     Aglio Database Solutions
     San Francisco
    
    
    
  3. Re: failures on machines using jfs

    Robert Creager <robert_creager@logicalchaos.org> — 2004-01-10T03:28:16Z

    When grilled further on (Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:06:08 -0500),
    Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> confessed:
    
    > 
    > We have lately had a couple of cases where machines either locked up,
    > slowed down to the point of complete unusability, or died completely
    > while using jfs.  We are _not_ sure that jfs is in fact the culprit. 
    > In one case, a kernel panic appeared to be referring to the jfs
    > kernel module, but I can't be sure as I lost the output immediately
    > thereafter.  Yesterday, we had a problem of data corruption on a
    > failed jfs volume.
    > 
    > None of this is to say that jfs is in fact to blame, nor even that,
    > if it is, it does not have something to do with the age of our
    > installations, &c. (these are all RH 8).  In fact, I suspect hardware
    > in both cases.  But I thought I'd mention it just in case other
    > people are seeing strange behaviour, on the principle of "better
    > safe than sorry."
    > 
    
    Interestingly enough, I'm using JFS on a new scsi disk with Mandrake 9.1 and
    was having similar problems.  I was generating heavy disk usage through database
    and astronomical data reductions.  My machine (dual AMD) would suddenly hang. 
    No new jobs would run, just increase the load, until I reboot the machine.
    
    I solved my problems by creating a 128Mb ram disk (using EXT2) for the temp
    data produced my reduction runs.
    
    I believe JFS was to blame, not hardware, but you never know...
    
    Cheers,
    Rob
    
    -- 
     20:22:27 up 12 days, 10:13,  4 users,  load average: 2.00, 2.01, 2.03
    
  4. Re: failures on machines using jfs

    Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@libertyrms.info> — 2004-01-11T02:08:50Z

    Robert_Creager@LogicalChaos.org (Robert Creager) writes:
    > When grilled further on (Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:06:08 -0500),
    > Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> confessed:
    >
    >> We have lately had a couple of cases where machines either locked
    >> up, slowed down to the point of complete unusability, or died
    >> completely while using jfs.  We are _not_ sure that jfs is in fact
    >> the culprit.  In one case, a kernel panic appeared to be referring
    >> to the jfs kernel module, but I can't be sure as I lost the output
    >> immediately thereafter.  Yesterday, we had a problem of data
    >> corruption on a failed jfs volume.
    >> 
    >> None of this is to say that jfs is in fact to blame, nor even that,
    >> if it is, it does not have something to do with the age of our
    >> installations, &c. (these are all RH 8).  In fact, I suspect
    >> hardware in both cases.  But I thought I'd mention it just in case
    >> other people are seeing strange behaviour, on the principle of
    >> "better safe than sorry."
    >
    > Interestingly enough, I'm using JFS on a new scsi disk with Mandrake
    > 9.1 and was having similar problems.  I was generating heavy disk
    > usage through database and astronomical data reductions.  My machine
    > (dual AMD) would suddenly hang.  No new jobs would run, just
    > increase the load, until I reboot the machine.
    >
    > I solved my problems by creating a 128Mb ram disk (using EXT2) for
    > the temp data produced my reduction runs.
    >
    > I believe JFS was to blame, not hardware, but you never know...
    
    Interesting.
    
    The set of concurrent factors that came together to appear when this
    happened "consistently" were thus:
    
     1.  Heavy DB updates taking place on JFS filesystems;
    
     2.  SMP (we suspected Xeon hyperthreading as a possible factor, but
         shut it off and still saw the same problem...)
    
     3.  The third factor that appeared a catalyst was copying, via scp, a
         file > 2GB in size onto the system.
    
    The third piece was a particularly interesting aspect; the file would
    get copied over successfully, and the scp process would hang (to the
    point of "kill -9" being unable to touch it) immediately thereafter.
    
    At that point, processes on the system that were accessing files on
    the hung-up filesystem were locked, also unkillable by "kill 9."
    That's certainly consistent with JFS being at the root of the problem,
    whether it was the cause or not...
    -- 
    let name="cbbrowne" and tld="libertyrms.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
    <http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
    Christopher Browne
    (416) 646 3304 x124 (land)