* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin @ 2021-11-12 11:49 Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-12 19:17 ` Mathieu Othacehe ` (5 more replies) 0 siblings, 6 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-11-12 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 Hello, On berlin, the daily GC command is still running whereas it was started 9 hours ago. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- guix processes [...] SessionPID: 37231 ClientPID: 37195 ClientCommand: /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- mathieu@berlin ~$ ps auxww|grep 37195 root 37195 0.0 0.0 183260 33440 ? Sl 03:59 0:00 /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That's really problematic as it is blocking some other berlin services such as Cuirass, which has 4564 packages in its fetch queue: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- mathieu@berlin ~$ less /var/log/cuirass-remote-server.log [...] 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 0 resumable, 0 failed builds. 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 4564 items in the fetch queue. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-11-12 19:17 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-22 9:16 ` zimoun ` (4 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-11-12 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 > mathieu@berlin ~$ ps auxww|grep 37195 > root 37195 0.0 0.0 183260 33440 ? Sl 03:59 0:00 /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 I just killed this process, it was running for more than 16 hours. Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-12 19:17 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-11-22 9:16 ` zimoun 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès ` (3 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: zimoun @ 2021-11-22 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Hi, On Fri, 12 Nov 2021 at 12:51, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> wrote: > On berlin, the daily GC command is still running whereas it was started > 9 hours ago. > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > guix processes > [...] > SessionPID: 37231 > ClientPID: 37195 > ClientCommand: /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > and > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > mathieu@berlin ~$ ps auxww|grep 37195 > root 37195 0.0 0.0 183260 33440 ? Sl 03:59 0:00 /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > That's really problematic as it is blocking some other berlin services > such as Cuirass, which has 4564 packages in its fetch queue: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > mathieu@berlin ~$ less /var/log/cuirass-remote-server.log > [...] > 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 0 resumable, 0 failed builds. > 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 4564 items in the fetch queue. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- How is it possible to investigate? Cheers, simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-12 19:17 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-22 9:16 ` zimoun @ 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-11-25 13:24 ` Christopher Baines 2021-11-27 11:11 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 19:38 ` Ricardo Wurmus ` (2 subsequent siblings) 5 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-11-23 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Hello! Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis: > On berlin, the daily GC command is still running whereas it was started > 9 hours ago. Some data points: • I deployed on berlin the new daemon featuring the faster “deleting unused links” phase from <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/24937> on Nov. 20. However, that part runs after the GC lock has been released, so it’s not really relevant (but it is relevant to I/O load and GC efficiency.) • When discussing together with Chris Baines yesterday on IRC, we found that the sqlite WAL file was 8 GiB. I later ran: PRAGMA wal_checkpoint(TRUNCATE); which emptied it immediately. However, GC time wasn’t particularly different today. • ‘db.sqlite’ weighs in at 19 GiB (!) so perhaps there’s something to do, like the “VACUUM” thing maybe. Chris? • Stracing the session’s guix-daemon process during GC suggests that most of the time goes into I/O from ‘db.sqlite’. It’s not surprising because that GC phase is basically about browsing the database, but it does seem to take a little too long for each store item. • I haven’t checked recently but I recall that ‘guix gc --list-roots’ (or its C++ counterpart, ‘findRoots’) would take ages on berlin because of all the GC roots Cuirass registers. It may be that an hour or so goes into enumerating GC roots. Collecting garbage, Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-11-25 13:24 ` Christopher Baines 2021-11-27 11:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-11-27 11:11 ` Ludovic Courtès 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Christopher Baines @ 2021-11-25 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: Mathieu Othacehe, 51787 [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3720 bytes --] Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes: > • When discussing together with Chris Baines yesterday on IRC, we > found that the sqlite WAL file was 8 GiB. I later ran: > > PRAGMA wal_checkpoint(TRUNCATE); > > which emptied it immediately. However, GC time wasn’t particularly > different today. So, as I understand it, the WAL is made up of pages, and checking for this db, I think they're the current default size of 4096 bytes. sqlite> PRAGMA page_size; 4096 From looking at the code, the wal_autocheckpoint value is set to 40000: /* Increase the auto-checkpoint interval to 40000 pages. This seems enough to ensure that instantiating the NixOS system derivation is done in a single fsync(). */ if (mode == "wal" && sqlite3_exec(db, "pragma wal_autocheckpoint = 40000;", 0, 0, 0) != SQLITE_OK) throwSQLiteError(db, "setting autocheckpoint interval"); https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/nix/libstore/local-store.cc#n253 This means you'd expect the WAL to be in the region of 40000*4096 bytes, or ~160MB. Assuming the autocheckpointing is keeping up... it doesn't look to be, since the file is now much larger than this. As described here [1], the automatic checkpoints are PASSIVE ones, which has the advantage of not interrupting any readers or writers, but can also do nothing if it's being blocked by readers or writers. 1: https://www.sqlite.org/wal.html#application_initiated_checkpoints What I've found while writing the Guix Build Coordinator, is that when the service is busy (usually new builds being submitted, plus lots of builds happening), the PASSIVE checkpoints aren't sufficient. To supplement them, there's a regular check that looks at the size of the WAL file, and runs a TRUNCATE checkpoint, which is a FULL checkpoint (which blocks new writers), plus truncating the WAL file once it's finished checkpointing the entire WAL. The truncating is mostly so that it's easier to monitor the size of the WAL, by checking the size of the file. I feel like I need to defend SQLite at this point. Tuning the configuration of a database to get acceptable performance is the norm, I had to tune the PostgreSQL configuration for data.guix.gnu.org to improve the performance. It's easier to get in to trouble with SQLite because it's a lower level too, and requires you to actually initiate things like checkpoints or periodic optimisation if you want them to happen. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the internals of the daemon to say anything specific though. > • ‘db.sqlite’ weighs in at 19 GiB (!) so perhaps there’s something to > do, like the “VACUUM” thing maybe. Chris? Doing a VACCUM might address some fragmentation and improve performance, it's probably worth trying. > • Stracing the session’s guix-daemon process during GC suggests that > most of the time goes into I/O from ‘db.sqlite’. It’s not > surprising because that GC phase is basically about browsing the > database, but it does seem to take a little too long for each store > item. At least the way I've approached finding and fixing the poor performance issues in the Guix Build Coordinator is through adding instrumentation, so just recording the time that calling particular procedures takes, and then logging if it's longer than some threshold. Since this issue is about Cuirass, there's also the possibility of avoiding the problems of a large store, by avoiding having a large store. That's what bordeaux.guix.gnu.org does, and I thought it was part of the plan for ci.guix.gnu.org (at least around a year ago)? [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-25 13:24 ` Christopher Baines @ 2021-11-27 11:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-03 9:45 ` Mathieu Othacehe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-11-27 11:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christopher Baines; +Cc: Mathieu Othacehe, 51787 Hi Chris, Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis: > So, as I understand it, the WAL is made up of pages, and checking for > this db, I think they're the current default size of 4096 bytes. > > sqlite> PRAGMA page_size; > 4096 > > From looking at the code, the wal_autocheckpoint value is set to 40000: > > /* Increase the auto-checkpoint interval to 40000 pages. This > seems enough to ensure that instantiating the NixOS system > derivation is done in a single fsync(). */ > if (mode == "wal" && sqlite3_exec(db, "pragma wal_autocheckpoint = 40000;", 0, 0, 0) != SQLITE_OK) > throwSQLiteError(db, "setting autocheckpoint interval"); > > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/nix/libstore/local-store.cc#n253 > > This means you'd expect the WAL to be in the region of 40000*4096 bytes, > or ~160MB. Assuming the autocheckpointing is keeping up... it doesn't > look to be, since the file is now much larger than this. > > As described here [1], the automatic checkpoints are PASSIVE ones, which > has the advantage of not interrupting any readers or writers, but can > also do nothing if it's being blocked by readers or writers. > > 1: https://www.sqlite.org/wal.html#application_initiated_checkpoints > > What I've found while writing the Guix Build Coordinator, is that when > the service is busy (usually new builds being submitted, plus lots of > builds happening), the PASSIVE checkpoints aren't sufficient. To > supplement them, there's a regular check that looks at the size of the > WAL file, and runs a TRUNCATE checkpoint, which is a FULL checkpoint > (which blocks new writers), plus truncating the WAL file once it's > finished checkpointing the entire WAL. The truncating is mostly so that > it's easier to monitor the size of the WAL, by checking the size of the > file. OK. That may well be what happens on berlin these days: the database is kept busy all day long, so presumably checkpoints don’t happen and the WAL file grows. > I feel like I need to defend SQLite at this point. Tuning the > configuration of a database to get acceptable performance is the norm, I > had to tune the PostgreSQL configuration for data.guix.gnu.org to > improve the performance. It's easier to get in to trouble with SQLite > because it's a lower level too, and requires you to actually initiate > things like checkpoints or periodic optimisation if you want them to > happen. Understood. It’s really not about defending software X against Y, but rather about finding ways to address the issues we experience. >> • ‘db.sqlite’ weighs in at 19 GiB (!) so perhaps there’s something to >> do, like the “VACUUM” thing maybe. Chris? > > Doing a VACCUM might address some fragmentation and improve performance, > it's probably worth trying. Alright, let’s give it a try. >> • Stracing the session’s guix-daemon process during GC suggests that >> most of the time goes into I/O from ‘db.sqlite’. It’s not >> surprising because that GC phase is basically about browsing the >> database, but it does seem to take a little too long for each store >> item. > > At least the way I've approached finding and fixing the poor performance > issues in the Guix Build Coordinator is through adding instrumentation, > so just recording the time that calling particular procedures takes, and > then logging if it's longer than some threshold. Yeah, that makes sense. I think we always took these bits of the daemon for granted because they’d been used on large stores even before Guix existed. > Since this issue is about Cuirass, there's also the possibility of > avoiding the problems of a large store, by avoiding having a large > store. That's what bordeaux.guix.gnu.org does, and I thought it was part > of the plan for ci.guix.gnu.org (at least around a year ago)? That’s indeed the case: the store is smaller than it used to be (but still 27 TiB), it’s GC’d more aggressively than before, and instead we rely on /var/cache/guix/publish for long-term storage. Perhaps we should go further and keep the store smaller though. Thanks for your feedback! Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-27 11:23 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-03 9:45 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 6:24 ` Mathieu Othacehe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-03 9:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 51787 Hello, > That’s indeed the case: the store is smaller than it used to be (but > still 27 TiB), it’s GC’d more aggressively than before, and instead we > rely on /var/cache/guix/publish for long-term storage. > > Perhaps we should go further and keep the store smaller though. That's what I did with 93adf7aaa693d234ee13240e9f4ff22a2dfef599 on maintenance. It increases the GC threshold to 15TiB. Let's see if it brings some improvements. Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-03 9:45 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 6:24 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 6:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 51787 Hey, New GC recap. The process that has been started yesterday at 04:00 is still running. I killed the GC that was started today at 04:00 to keep things clear. From yesterday 11:00 when I started monitoring it to today when I'm writing this email, 20 hours have elapsed and the GC is still in the same phase: removing recursively the /gnu/store/trash directory content. It corresponds to the following snippet for those of you who would like to have a look to the corresponding code: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- if (state.shouldDelete) { if (pathExists(state.trashDir)) deleteGarbage(state, state.trashDir); // > 20 hours try { createDirs(state.trashDir); } catch (SysError & e) { if (e.errNo == ENOSPC) { printMsg(lvlInfo, format("note: can't create trash directory: %1%") % e.msg()); state.moveToTrash = false; } } }--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- This is an early phase of the garbage collecting, where store items that were moved to the trash directory by previous GC runs are effectively removed. Stracing the guix-daemon process associated with the GC process clearly shows what's going on: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- chmod("/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/rust-syntex-0.58.1", 040755) = 0 <0.000012> openat(AT_FDCWD, "/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/rust-syntex-0.58.1", O_RDONLY|O_NONBLOCK|O_CLOEXEC|O_DIRECTORY) = 13 <0.000011> fstat(13, {st_mode=S_IFDIR|0755, st_size=4096, ...}) = 0 <0.000007> getdents64(13, 0x397a510 /* 3 entries */, 32768) = 80 <0.005059> getdents64(13, 0x397a510 /* 0 entries */, 32768) = 0 <0.000007> close(13) = 0 <0.000008> statx(AT_FDCWD, "/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/rust-syntex-0.58.1/index.html", AT_STATX_SYNC_AS_STAT|AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW, STATX_MODE|STATX_NLINK|STATX_SIZE, {stx_mask=STATX_BASIC_STATS|0x1000, stx_attributes=0, stx_mode=S_IFREG|0444, stx_size=10265, ...}) = 0 <0.000023> unlink("/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/rust-syntex-0.58.1/index.html") = 0 <0.000013> rmdir("/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/rust-syntex-0.58.1") = 0 <0.000028> statx(AT_FDCWD, "/gnu/store/trash/272ibwb38i0kcbcl3n9v0ka1rsmd1104-guix-web-site/de/packages/lofreq-2.1.5", AT_STATX_ --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Several syscalls are involved to clean the trash directory: chmod, openat, statx, unlink and rmdir. This does not seem particularly wrong. What is problematic though is that in 20 hours, the free space has bumped from 9.6T to 9.7T in the store partition. As the GC lock is preventing most of Berlin services from running, almost all the machine IO is dedicated to removing this directory, as shown by iotop. I'm not sure to understand why this removing process is so long, but if someone has an idea, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I plan to let the GC run and keep monitoring it. Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-10 6:24 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-10 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Hi, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis: > What is problematic though is that in 20 hours, the free space has > bumped from 9.6T to 9.7T in the store partition. As the GC lock is > preventing most of Berlin services from running, almost all the machine > IO is dedicated to removing this directory, as shown by iotop. > > I'm not sure to understand why this removing process is so long, but if > someone has an idea, I'm all ears. In the meantime, I plan to let the GC > run and keep monitoring it. This is the first time GC runs since we’ve increased the threshold from 10 TiB to 15 TiB free. There are at least 5 more TiBs to delete than usual, so it’s expected to take more time. Still, I’m surprised a mere ‘rm -rf’ can take this long. ‘strace -T’ on the child guix-daemon process doesn’t reveal anything obviously wrong, pause times or similar. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-10 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 21:54 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 51787 Hey, > Still, I’m surprised a mere ‘rm -rf’ can take this long. ‘strace -T’ on > the child guix-daemon process doesn’t reveal anything obviously wrong, > pause times or similar. I noticed that the process isn't around anymore. Did anyone killed it, or maybe it just crashed? Also noticed some trash removing commands were running. Regardless of the root cause of the problem, getting rid of the trash directory before the next evaluation seems like a good idea. Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 21:54 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-11 9:42 ` Mathieu Othacehe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-10 21:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis: >> Still, I’m surprised a mere ‘rm -rf’ can take this long. ‘strace -T’ on >> the child guix-daemon process doesn’t reveal anything obviously wrong, >> pause times or similar. > > I noticed that the process isn't around anymore. Did anyone killed it, > or maybe it just crashed? Also noticed some trash removing commands were > running. Regardless of the root cause of the problem, getting rid of the > trash directory before the next evaluation seems like a good idea. Yeah I don’t know what happened to the GC process but it disappeared earlier today. Then I started things like this: unshare -m sh -c 'mount --bind -o remount,rw /gnu/store; rm -rf --one-file-system /gnu/store/trash/[abc]*' which is equally slow (perhaps slightly slower: it seems to do more syscalls per file to remove than the guix-daemon code). Anyway, I’ll let it run hoping it’ll be done by the next GC. Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-10 21:54 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-11 9:42 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-11 9:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 51787 Hey, > Yeah I don’t know what happened to the GC process but it disappeared > earlier today. Then I started things like this: > > unshare -m sh -c 'mount --bind -o remount,rw /gnu/store; rm -rf --one-file-system /gnu/store/trash/[abc]*' > > which is equally slow (perhaps slightly slower: it seems to do more > syscalls per file to remove than the guix-daemon code). > > Anyway, I’ll let it run hoping it’ll be done by the next GC. OK, thanks. Looks it just finished removing the trash directory content. I started a GC process from my session to monitor it closely. Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-11 9:42 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-13 16:13 ` Christian Thäter ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-12 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 Hey, > OK, thanks. Looks it just finished removing the trash directory > content. I started a GC process from my session to monitor it closely. Daily GC recap: * The GC process I started yesterday, did collect 5.5TiB in approximately 24 hours, that are now in the /gnu/store/trash directory. * The /gnu/store/trash directory contains 288910 entries. If those items are removed at the same rate than on the previous days, it will take days/months to delete them all. * I noticed that the upstream Nix GC process can now operate without locking. I think it shouldn't be too hard to port it to our fork or maybe rewrite the process in Guile while we are at it. That will not fix the slow hard-drives issues though. Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-13 16:13 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-14 3:31 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-17 10:55 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Christian Thäter @ 2021-12-13 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 On 2021-12-12 18:09, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: >Hey, > >> OK, thanks. Looks it just finished removing the trash directory >> content. I started a GC process from my session to monitor it >> closely. > >Daily GC recap: > >* The GC process I started yesterday, did collect 5.5TiB in > approximately 24 hours, that are now in the /gnu/store/trash > directory. > >* The /gnu/store/trash directory contains 288910 entries. If those >items > are removed at the same rate than on the previous days, it will take > days/months to delete them all. > >* I noticed that the upstream Nix GC process can now operate without > locking. I think it shouldn't be too hard to port it to our fork or > maybe rewrite the process in Guile while we are at it. > > That will not fix the slow hard-drives issues though. While discussing this issue on IRC I came up with some idea: 'rmrfd' a system daemon that deletes huge trees in the background where '-rf' stands for --really --fast :) Actually this is an use case that happens for on my backup system too. With that idea I just started coding and ran some experiments. For me this looks quite feasible now and I will continue next days on this small project. Any feedback or help would be welcomed! The initial ideas and experiments are at https://github.com/cehteh/rmrfd Note that the important part is that it will put some efforts into freeing as much space as possible at begin of the freeing process, Unlike just 'rm -rf' where space may only freed really late when the last link count of the data goes to zero. Cheers Christian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-13 16:13 ` Christian Thäter @ 2021-12-14 3:31 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-17 10:55 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Christian Thäter @ 2021-12-14 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 On 2021-12-12 18:09, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: >Hey, > >> OK, thanks. Looks it just finished removing the trash directory >> content. I started a GC process from my session to monitor it >> closely. > >Daily GC recap: > >* The GC process I started yesterday, did collect 5.5TiB in > approximately 24 hours, that are now in the /gnu/store/trash > directory. > >* The /gnu/store/trash directory contains 288910 entries. If those >items > are removed at the same rate than on the previous days, it will take > days/months to delete them all. On another note: when 'guix gc' determines that objects are dead, are they really dead then or can it be that they are 'locally' dead but in case the store serves as substitutes/offload server some external clients may still request dead objects? In the either case would make sense to run the GC more frequently, but for the later case a --min-age option to preserve objects that just died recently could be helping. Further it may consider the atime of objects for removal. And finally while I had this Idea: You mount the guix store with 'relatime' or 'nodiratme', if not that could explain the slow deletion process as well! Christian > >* I noticed that the upstream Nix GC process can now operate without > locking. I think it shouldn't be too hard to port it to our fork or > maybe rewrite the process in Guile while we are at it. > > That will not fix the slow hard-drives issues though. > >Thanks, > >Mathieu > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-13 16:13 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-14 3:31 ` Christian Thäter @ 2021-12-17 10:55 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-17 13:06 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-17 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787; +Cc: rekado [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1076 bytes --] Hey, New day, new benchmark. Berlin has two hard drives, which are roughly used this way: /dev/sda -> / (916G) /dev/sdb -> /gnu (37T) I ran the fio benchmark tool on both of them. See the reports attached, and the following summary: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- | | sda | sdb | |-------+-----------+-----------| | read | 1565KiB/s | 9695KiB/s | | write | 523KiB/s | 3240KiB/s | --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I'm not sure how slow those figures are relatively to the hard drives technologies. Ricardo, any idea about that? My own NVME hard drive has 294MiB/s read and 98.1MiB/s write with the same test in comparison. I also tried to benchmark file removal this way, but this is not really conclusive: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- # 3.8s on sdb time for i in {0..100000}; do echo 'test' > "fs_test/test${i}.txt"; done # 2.7s on sdb time rf -rf fs_test --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Thanks, Mathieu [-- Attachment #2: fio_sda --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2264 bytes --] mathieu@berlin ~$ fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.28 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=1437KiB/s,w=428KiB/s][r=359,w=107 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=71924: Fri Dec 17 11:17:12 2021 read: IOPS=391, BW=1565KiB/s (1602kB/s)(3070MiB/2008868msec) bw ( KiB/s): min= 304, max= 3190, per=100.00%, avg=1566.30, stdev=323.23, samples=4014 iops : min= 76, max= 797, avg=391.48, stdev=80.84, samples=4014 write: IOPS=130, BW=523KiB/s (536kB/s)(1026MiB/2008868msec); 0 zone resets bw ( KiB/s): min= 120, max= 1146, per=100.00%, avg=523.43, stdev=124.21, samples=4014 iops : min= 30, max= 286, avg=130.80, stdev=31.06, samples=4014 cpu : usr=0.16%, sys=0.58%, ctx=1039425, majf=0, minf=589 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=785920,262656,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=1565KiB/s (1602kB/s), 1565KiB/s-1565KiB/s (1602kB/s-1602kB/s), io=3070MiB (3219MB), run=2008868-2008868msec WRITE: bw=523KiB/s (536kB/s), 523KiB/s-523KiB/s (536kB/s-536kB/s), io=1026MiB (1076MB), run=2008868-2008868msec Disk stats (read/write): sda: ios=805734/364174, merge=7143/37100, ticks=137586969/41308, in_queue=137628277, util=99.71% mathieu@berlin ~$ fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/var/cache/test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.28 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) fio: pid=0, err=13/file:filesetup.c:174, func=open, error=Permission denied [-- Attachment #3: fio_sdb --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2329 bytes --] mathieu@berlin ~$ fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/var/cache/test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.28 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) fio: pid=0, err=13/file:filesetup.c:174, func=open, error=Permission denied Run status group 0 (all jobs): mathieu@berlin ~$ sudo fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/var/cache/test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 Password: test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.28 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=6610KiB/s,w=2190KiB/s][r=1652,w=547 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=49274: Fri Dec 17 11:30:38 2021 read: IOPS=2423, BW=9695KiB/s (9927kB/s)(3070MiB/324270msec) bw ( KiB/s): min= 2392, max=17808, per=100.00%, avg=9704.06, stdev=2476.08, samples=648 iops : min= 598, max= 4452, avg=2425.92, stdev=619.02, samples=648 write: IOPS=809, BW=3240KiB/s (3318kB/s)(1026MiB/324270msec); 0 zone resets bw ( KiB/s): min= 1080, max= 5968, per=100.00%, avg=3243.27, stdev=833.97, samples=648 iops : min= 270, max= 1492, avg=810.71, stdev=208.49, samples=648 cpu : usr=0.55%, sys=2.84%, ctx=1004749, majf=0, minf=129 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=785920,262656,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=9695KiB/s (9927kB/s), 9695KiB/s-9695KiB/s (9927kB/s-9927kB/s), io=3070MiB (3219MB), run=324270-324270msec WRITE: bw=3240KiB/s (3318kB/s), 3240KiB/s-3240KiB/s (3318kB/s-3318kB/s), io=1026MiB (1076MB), run=324270-324270msec Disk stats (read/write): sdb: ios=790930/270846, merge=2539/10683, ticks=21982026/264629, in_queue=22246666, util=100.00% ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-17 10:55 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-17 13:06 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2021-12-17 14:08 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-17 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Hi Mathieu, > New day, new benchmark. Berlin has two hard drives, which are roughly > used this way: > > /dev/sda -> / (916G) > /dev/sdb -> /gnu (37T) sda consists of two local hard disks that are combined to a RAID. Here are the disk details: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Disk.Bay.0:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Slot.3-1 Status = Ok DeviceDescription = Disk 0 in Backplane 1 of RAID Controller in Slot 3 RollupStatus = Ok Name = Physical Disk 0:1:0 State = Online OperationState = Not Applicable PowerStatus = Spun-Up Size = 931.000 GB FailurePredicted = NO RemainingRatedWriteEndurance = Not Applicable SecurityStatus = Not Capable BusProtocol = SATA MediaType = HDD UsedRaidDiskSpace = 931.000 GB AvailableRaidDiskSpace = 0.001 GB Hotspare = NO Manufacturer = SEAGATE ProductId = ST1000NX0443 Revision = NB33 SerialNumber = W470QK7K PartNumber = CN08DN1YSGW0076S00L8A00 NegotiatedSpeed = 6.0 Gb/s ManufacturedDay = 0 ManufacturedWeek = 0 ManufacturedYear = 0 ForeignKeyIdentifier = null SasAddress = 0x4433221106000000 FormFactor = 2.5 Inch RaidNominalMediumRotationRate = 7200 T10PICapability = Not Capable BlockSizeInBytes = 512 MaxCapableSpeed = 6 Gb/s RaidType = None SystemEraseCapability = CryptographicErasePD SelfEncryptingDriveCapability = Not Capable EncryptionCapability = Not Capable CryptographicEraseCapability = Capable Disk.Bay.1:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Slot.3-1 Status = Ok DeviceDescription = Disk 1 in Backplane 1 of RAID Controller in Slot 3 RollupStatus = Ok Name = Physical Disk 0:1:1 State = Online OperationState = Not Applicable PowerStatus = Spun-Up Size = 931.000 GB FailurePredicted = NO RemainingRatedWriteEndurance = Not Applicable SecurityStatus = Not Capable BusProtocol = SATA MediaType = HDD UsedRaidDiskSpace = 931.000 GB AvailableRaidDiskSpace = 0.001 GB Hotspare = NO Manufacturer = SEAGATE ProductId = ST1000NX0443 Revision = NB33 SerialNumber = W470SYTP PartNumber = CN08DN1YSGW0077F00FQA00 NegotiatedSpeed = 6.0 Gb/s ManufacturedDay = 0 ManufacturedWeek = 0 ManufacturedYear = 0 ForeignKeyIdentifier = null SasAddress = 0x4433221107000000 FormFactor = 2.5 Inch RaidNominalMediumRotationRate = 7200 T10PICapability = Not Capable BlockSizeInBytes = 512 MaxCapableSpeed = 6 Gb/s RaidType = None SystemEraseCapability = CryptographicErasePD SelfEncryptingDriveCapability = Not Capable EncryptionCapability = Not Capable CryptographicEraseCapability = Capable --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- sdb is an external storage array (Dell MD3400) filled with 10 hard disks (SAS) in a RAID 10 configuration (36.36 TB effective capacity). There are two hot spares that are currently unassigned. They are used automatically when the RAID is degraded. The two RAID controllers have read and write caches enabled. The enclosure has two redundant host interfaces. Berlin has two host based adapter cards of which *one* is connected to the array. Why only one? Because we don’t have multipathd configured so that the system could *boot* off the external array with multipath. Without multipath the storage would appear as one disk device per card, but it would not be safe to mount them both at the same time. If we wanted to make use of the redundant connection here: figure out how to add multipathd to the initrd and set up multipath *before* handing off control to Linux. This would effectively double our bandwidth to the storage. My guess is that we’re not even close to saturating the available bandwidth. > I ran the fio benchmark tool on both of them. See the reports > attached, and the following summary: > > | | sda | sdb | > |-------+-----------+-----------| > | read | 1565KiB/s | 9695KiB/s | > | write | 523KiB/s | 3240KiB/s | > > > I'm not sure how slow those figures are relatively to the hard drives > technologies. Ricardo, any idea about that? It seems awfully slow. Especially performance of sda is abysmal: this is a local disk. sdb is the fancy external disk array that’s hooked up to two HBA cards. It should not perform *better* than sda. I’ll run this on a few of the build nodes to get some more comparisons. -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-17 13:06 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-17 14:08 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-17 14:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes: > I’ll run this on a few of the build nodes to get some more comparisons. I ran “guix deploy” for hydra-guix-107, a node that was bought at the same time as the one that is now the head node of ci.guix.gnu.org. I copied over a current Guix and installed “fio” (/gnu/store/qs9cyy5s95n2fbjmxs48iccqvsvj6wxr-fio-3.28/bin/fio) there. Here’s the output: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- root@hydra-guix-107 ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 4096B-4096B, (W) 4096B-4096B, (T) 4096B-4096B, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.28 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=172MiB/s,w=56.9MiB/s][r=44.2k,w=14.6k IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=45365: Fri Dec 17 14:50:41 2021 read: IOPS=42.9k, BW=167MiB/s (176MB/s)(3070MiB/18331msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=21208, max=199928, per=100.00%, avg=171621.56, stdev=46624.05, samples=36 iops : min= 5302, max=49982, avg=42905.39, stdev=11656.01, samples=36 write: IOPS=14.3k, BW=56.0MiB/s (58.7MB/s)(1026MiB/18331msec); 0 zone resets bw ( KiB/s): min= 7424, max=66720, per=100.00%, avg=57364.22, stdev=15612.42, samples=36 iops : min= 1856, max=16680, avg=14341.06, stdev=3903.10, samples=36 cpu : usr=6.27%, sys=24.78%, ctx=121626, majf=0, minf=11 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.1%, 32=0.1%, >=64=100.0% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=785920,262656,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=167MiB/s (176MB/s), 167MiB/s-167MiB/s (176MB/s-176MB/s), io=3070MiB (3219MB), run=18331-18331msec WRITE: bw=56.0MiB/s (58.7MB/s), 56.0MiB/s-56.0MiB/s (58.7MB/s-58.7MB/s), io=1026MiB (1076MB), run=18331-18331msec Disk stats (read/write): sda: ios=779469/260494, merge=0/6, ticks=932265/195191, in_queue=1127456, util=99.50% --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Here sda is RAID of two SSDs: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- racadm>>storage get pdisks -o Disk.Bay.0:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1 Status = Ok DeviceDescription = Disk 0 in Backplane 1 of Integrated RAID Controller 1 RollupStatus = Ok Name = Solid State Disk 0:1:0 State = Online OperationState = Not Applicable PowerStatus = On Size = 223.001 GB FailurePredicted = NO RemainingRatedWriteEndurance = 99 % SecurityStatus = Not Capable BusProtocol = SATA MediaType = SSD UsedRaidDiskSpace = 223.001 GB AvailableRaidDiskSpace = 0.001 GB Hotspare = NO Manufacturer = INTEL ProductId = SSDSC2KG240G8R Revision = XCV1DL67 SerialNumber = BTYG91520CHD240AGN PartNumber = CN0T1WH8PESIT95302LTA01 NegotiatedSpeed = 6.0 Gb/s ManufacturedDay = 0 ManufacturedWeek = 0 ManufacturedYear = 0 ForeignKeyIdentifier = null SasAddress = 0x4433221104000000 WWN = 0x4433221104000000 FormFactor = 2.5 Inch RaidNominalMediumRotationRate = 1 T10PICapability = Not Capable BlockSizeInBytes = 512 MaxCapableSpeed = 6 Gb/s RaidType = Unknown SystemEraseCapability = CryptographicErasePD SelfEncryptingDriveCapability = Not Capable EncryptionCapability = Not Capable CryptographicEraseCapability = Capable Certified = Yes NonRAIDDiskCachePolicy = Not Applicable EncryptionProtocol = None Disk.Bay.1:Enclosure.Internal.0-1:RAID.Integrated.1-1 Status = Ok DeviceDescription = Disk 1 in Backplane 1 of Integrated RAID Controller 1 RollupStatus = Ok Name = Solid State Disk 0:1:1 State = Online OperationState = Not Applicable PowerStatus = On Size = 223.001 GB FailurePredicted = NO RemainingRatedWriteEndurance = 99 % SecurityStatus = Not Capable BusProtocol = SATA MediaType = SSD UsedRaidDiskSpace = 223.001 GB AvailableRaidDiskSpace = 0.001 GB Hotspare = NO Manufacturer = INTEL ProductId = SSDSC2KG240G8R Revision = XCV1DL67 SerialNumber = BTYG915502D9240AGN PartNumber = CN0T1WH8PESIT95303BSA01 NegotiatedSpeed = 6.0 Gb/s ManufacturedDay = 0 ManufacturedWeek = 0 ManufacturedYear = 0 ForeignKeyIdentifier = null SasAddress = 0x4433221100000000 WWN = 0x4433221100000000 FormFactor = 2.5 Inch RaidNominalMediumRotationRate = 1 T10PICapability = Not Capable BlockSizeInBytes = 512 MaxCapableSpeed = 6 Gb/s RaidType = Unknown SystemEraseCapability = CryptographicErasePD SelfEncryptingDriveCapability = Not Capable EncryptionCapability = Not Capable CryptographicEraseCapability = Capable Certified = Yes NonRAIDDiskCachePolicy = Not Applicable EncryptionProtocol = None --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-12-10 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Mathieu Othacehe @ 2021-12-10 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 51787 Hey, > Still, I’m surprised a mere ‘rm -rf’ can take this long. ‘strace -T’ on > the child guix-daemon process doesn’t reveal anything obviously wrong, > pause times or similar. I noticed that the process isn't around anymore. Did anyone killed it, or maybe it just crashed? Also noticed some trash removing commands were running. Regardless of the root cause of the problem, getting rid of the trash directory before the next evaluation seems like a good idea. Thanks, Mathieu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-11-25 13:24 ` Christopher Baines @ 2021-11-27 11:11 ` Ludovic Courtès 1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-11-27 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis: > • Stracing the session’s guix-daemon process during GC suggests that > most of the time goes into I/O from ‘db.sqlite’. It’s not > surprising because that GC phase is basically about browsing the > database, but it does seem to take a little too long for each store > item. Stracing the client shows that the daemon spends several seconds on a single store item occasionally: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- read(27, "gmlo\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <0.363064> read(27, "c\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <0.000013> read(27, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/p6r2jjy6frp682z3x94nvnmdh71p1p58-ecl-quicksearch-0.01"..., 104) = 104 <0.000010> write(2, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/p6r2jjy6frp682z3x94nvnmdh71p1p58-ecl-quicksearch-0.01"..., 99) = 99 <0.000019> read(27, "gmlo\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <0.017863> read(27, "^\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <0.000019> read(27, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/v6zd510kfmqd8j4w7q3zy9bid1fj96dk-shepherd-guix-daemon"..., 96) = 96 <0.000007> write(2, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/v6zd510kfmqd8j4w7q3zy9bid1fj96dk-shepherd-guix-daemon"..., 94) = 94 <0.000012> read(27, "gmlo\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <5.861071> read(27, "T\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 8) = 8 <0.000061> read(27, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/0hpwig8cwdnzygjjzs9zjbxicvhif2vv-rust-bitvec-0.19.4.d"..., 88) = 88 <0.000087> write(2, "[95%] deleting '/gnu/store/0hpwig8cwdnzygjjzs9zjbxicvhif2vv-rust-bitvec-0.19.4.d"..., 84) = 84 <0.000033> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (Notice ‘read’ taking 5.9s above.) Ludo’. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès @ 2021-12-10 19:38 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2021-12-20 21:12 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2023-08-16 10:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer 5 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-10 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 > I noticed that the process isn't around anymore. Did anyone killed > it,or maybe it just crashed? I have not touched it. -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2021-12-10 19:38 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-20 21:12 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2023-08-16 10:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer 5 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2021-12-20 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 51787 My colleague extended the SAN slice to 5TB for more realistic testing. I formatted the disk with btrfs, and mounted it like this: mount /dev/sdd /mnt_test/ Then I ran the test with block size 512k: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- root@berlin ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/mnt_test/test --bs=512k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.6 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][100.0%][r=802MiB/s,w=274MiB/s][r=1603,w=547 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=16949: Mon Dec 20 22:18:28 2021 read: IOPS=1590, BW=795MiB/s (834MB/s)(3055MiB/3842msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=747520, max=857088, per=99.83%, avg=812763.43, stdev=44213.07, samples=7 iops : min= 1460, max= 1674, avg=1587.43, stdev=86.35, samples=7 write: IOPS=542, BW=271MiB/s (284MB/s)(1042MiB/3842msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=262144, max=297984, per=100.00%, avg=278820.57, stdev=15115.88, samples=7 iops : min= 512, max= 582, avg=544.57, stdev=29.52, samples=7 cpu : usr=1.98%, sys=96.28%, ctx=1096, majf=0, minf=6 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.2%, 32=0.4%, >=64=99.2% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=6109,2083,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=795MiB/s (834MB/s), 795MiB/s-795MiB/s (834MB/s-834MB/s), io=3055MiB (3203MB), run=3842-3842msec WRITE: bw=271MiB/s (284MB/s), 271MiB/s-271MiB/s (284MB/s-284MB/s), io=1042MiB (1092MB), run=3842-3842msec --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Because this is fun I reran it with the same arguments: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- root@berlin ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/mnt_test/test --bs=512k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.6 Starting 1 process Jobs: 1 (f=0): [f(1)][-.-%][r=756MiB/s,w=260MiB/s][r=1511,w=519 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=17488: Mon Dec 20 22:18:56 2021 read: IOPS=1647, BW=824MiB/s (864MB/s)(3055MiB/3708msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=738304, max=929792, per=99.28%, avg=837485.71, stdev=73710.05, samples=7 iops : min= 1442, max= 1816, avg=1635.71, stdev=143.96, samples=7 write: IOPS=561, BW=281MiB/s (295MB/s)(1042MiB/3708msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=234496, max=320512, per=99.79%, avg=287012.57, stdev=29009.60, samples=7 iops : min= 458, max= 626, avg=560.57, stdev=56.66, samples=7 cpu : usr=1.38%, sys=96.47%, ctx=1394, majf=0, minf=16420 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.2%, 32=0.4%, >=64=99.2% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=6109,2083,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=824MiB/s (864MB/s), 824MiB/s-824MiB/s (864MB/s-864MB/s), io=3055MiB (3203MB), run=3708-3708msec WRITE: bw=281MiB/s (295MB/s), 281MiB/s-281MiB/s (295MB/s-295MB/s), io=1042MiB (1092MB), run=3708-3708msec --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Then I mounted with compression and space cache: mount /dev/sdd -o compress-force=zstd,space_cache=v2 /mnt_test/ The numbers don’t differ much at all. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=882MiB/s (925MB/s), 882MiB/s-882MiB/s (925MB/s-925MB/s), io=3055MiB (3203MB), run=3464-3464msec WRITE: bw=301MiB/s (315MB/s), 301MiB/s-301MiB/s (315MB/s-315MB/s), io=1042MiB (1092MB), run=3464-3464msec --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I then erased the file system and again put on a big ext4: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- root@berlin ~# fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --gtod_reduce=1 --name=test --filename=/mnt_test/test --bs=512k --iodepth=64 --size=4G --readwrite=randrw --rwmixread=75 test: (g=0): rw=randrw, bs=(R) 512KiB-512KiB, (W) 512KiB-512KiB, (T) 512KiB-512KiB, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=64 fio-3.6 Starting 1 process test: Laying out IO file (1 file / 4096MiB) Jobs: 1 (f=1): [m(1)][-.-%][r=1539MiB/s,w=526MiB/s][r=3078,w=1052 IOPS][eta 00m:00s] test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=20672: Mon Dec 20 22:23:29 2021 read: IOPS=3077, BW=1539MiB/s (1614MB/s)(3055MiB/1985msec) bw ( MiB/s): min= 1530, max= 1548, per=100.00%, avg=1539.33, stdev= 9.02, samples=3 iops : min= 3060, max= 3096, avg=3078.67, stdev=18.04, samples=3 write: IOPS=1049, BW=525MiB/s (550MB/s)(1042MiB/1985msec) bw ( KiB/s): min=533504, max=557056, per=100.00%, avg=546133.33, stdev=11868.39, samples=3 iops : min= 1042, max= 1088, avg=1066.67, stdev=23.18, samples=3 cpu : usr=2.17%, sys=11.24%, ctx=4787, majf=0, minf=8 IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.1%, 4=0.1%, 8=0.1%, 16=0.2%, 32=0.4%, >=64=99.2% submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0% complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.1%, >=64=0.0% issued rwts: total=6109,2083,0,0 short=0,0,0,0 dropped=0,0,0,0 latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=64 Run status group 0 (all jobs): READ: bw=1539MiB/s (1614MB/s), 1539MiB/s-1539MiB/s (1614MB/s-1614MB/s), io=3055MiB (3203MB), run=1985-1985msec WRITE: bw=525MiB/s (550MB/s), 525MiB/s-525MiB/s (550MB/s-550MB/s), io=1042MiB (1092MB), run=1985-1985msec Disk stats (read/write): sdd: ios=5926/2087, merge=1/0, ticks=119183/3276, in_queue=122460, util=94.87% --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- No idea why btrfs performs so much worse in comparison. I’ll copy over /gnu/store/trash next. -- Ricardo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2021-12-20 21:12 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2023-08-16 10:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer 5 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2023-08-16 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mathieu Othacehe; +Cc: 51787-done Hi, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> writes: > Hello, > > On berlin, the daily GC command is still running whereas it was started > 9 hours ago. > > guix processes > [...] > SessionPID: 37231 > ClientPID: 37195 > ClientCommand: /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 > > > and > > mathieu@berlin ~$ ps auxww|grep 37195 > root 37195 0.0 0.0 183260 33440 ? Sl 03:59 0:00 /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/libexec/guix/guile \ /gnu/store/49vfv8l1j96bbd73ssbqanpnjz83arss-guix-1.3.0-11.014f1b6/bin/guix gc -F10995116277760 > > > That's really problematic as it is blocking some other berlin services > such as Cuirass, which has 4564 packages in its fetch queue: > > mathieu@berlin ~$ less /var/log/cuirass-remote-server.log > [...] > 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 0 resumable, 0 failed builds. > 2021-11-12T12:47:01 period update: 4564 items in the fetch queue. I'm more than happy to close this old, no longer relevant bug :-). Since it was reported, the storage was migrated to a much faster array, and is using the Btrfs file system with zstd compression, which avoids the inodes exhaustion issue we've had with ext4 in the past. A full garbage collection (GC) is run daily to keep the store growth in check and for the GC to always take a similar amount of time (less than 20 minutes) every day. -- Thanks, Maxim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-16 10:54 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-11-12 11:49 bug#51787: GC takes more than 9 hours on berlin Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-12 19:17 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-22 9:16 ` zimoun 2021-11-23 17:48 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-11-25 13:24 ` Christopher Baines 2021-11-27 11:23 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-03 9:45 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 6:24 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 10:21 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-10 21:54 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-11 9:42 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-12 17:09 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-13 16:13 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-14 3:31 ` Christian Thäter 2021-12-17 10:55 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-12-17 13:06 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2021-12-17 14:08 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2021-12-10 17:11 ` Mathieu Othacehe 2021-11-27 11:11 ` Ludovic Courtès 2021-12-10 19:38 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2021-12-20 21:12 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2023-08-16 10:53 ` Maxim Cournoyer
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).