[Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
Miller, Frank
Frank.Miller at windriver.com
Sat Apr 27 19:46:19 UTC 2019
Hi All:
After a prolonged debug session on Friday by various developers, it looks like the memory issue seen in the Intel labs is due to the excessive number of nova pods being launched which is directly related to the number of cores used on the BM servers. The Intel lab servers have many more cores than most of the labs used in WindRiver labs and explains why the memory issue is much rarer in some labs. Al Bailey and Gerry Kopec worked on a solution [1] which should be available in today's builds.
In addition while debugging the application-apply issues on AIO labs, in some cases timeouts were being seen either during download or applying of the stx-application. This is believed to be a result of a StoryBoard that merged two weeks ago to affine platform processes and pods to platform cores leaving the other cores available for application pods. This reduces the core processing available during application-apply. To alleviate this issue, two additional commits [2,3] were proposed and merged.
Let's review the updated sanity results on Monday and determine if any further actions are required.
Frank
[1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656037/
[2] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656009/
[3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/656025/
-----Original Message-----
From: Lemus Contreras, Cristopher J [mailto:cristopher.j.lemus.contreras at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 6:06 PM
To: Victor Rodriguez <vm.rod25 at gmail.com>; Cordoba Malibran, Erich <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com>
Cc: Li, Cheng1 <cheng1.li at intel.com>; Miller, Frank <Frank.Miller at windriver.com>; Perez Ibarra, Maria G <maria.g.perez.ibarra at intel.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
Hi All,
Some test were made to find the point where the memory is allocated:
Just after `config_controller` it's using just a handful of GBs:
controller-0:~$ free -h
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 93G 3.2G 84G 47M 5.5G 88G
Swap: 0B 0B 0B
controller-0:~$
Right after the unlock, when the system pass from "offline" status to "intest" it jumps from using 5.1GB to 71GB, this is just with kube-system pods:
total used free shared buff/cache available
Mem: 93G 71G 19G 45M 1.9G 20G
Swap: 0B 0B 0B
NAME READY STATUS RESTARTS AGE
calico-kube-controllers-84cdb6bd7c-w75rk 1/1 Running 1 36m
calico-node-zp8xv 1/1 Running 1 36m
coredns-84bb87857f-lp8sl 1/1 Running 1 36m
coredns-84bb87857f-r6mdf 0/1 Pending 0 36m
kube-apiserver-controller-0 1/1 Running 1 35m
kube-controller-manager-controller-0 1/1 Running 2 35m
kube-proxy-w7sfq 1/1 Running 1 36m
kube-scheduler-controller-0 1/1 Running 2 35m
tiller-deploy-d87d7bd75-hjb7w 1/1 Running 1 36m
Bug updated with this info.
Regards,
Cristopher Lemus
On 4/26/19, 11:30 AM, "Victor Rodriguez" <vm.rod25 at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi team
My findings so far this morning:
In order to know how much memory ( really ) a docker is consuming i
tested 2 tools ( docker stat and reading from the /proc/pid/mmpas )
I create a simple C code that consumes X KB of memory by malloc and
then free it:
https://github.com/VictorRodriguez/hobbies/blob/master/dev_ops/footprint/memory.c
Reserving 5000 Kb of memory
Value of String = simple_test
Address = 2895619200
Waiting for 30 seconds
I compile it and cp into my docker image:
https://github.com/VictorRodriguez/hobbies/blob/master/dev_ops/footprint/Dockerfile
When I run the docker and monitor the memory with docker stats :
It shows only 2.5 Kb of memory when from /proc kernel ifo i get :
vmrod at vmrod-ubuntu-devel:/tmp$ ./usr/bin/psstop | grep docker
docker-containe 1857 : 0 Kb
dockerd 2758 : 0 Kb
docker-containe 3368 : 0 Kb
docker-containe 5438 : 0 Kb
docker-containe 25159 : 0 Kb
docker 25105 : 48378 Kb
( first column is PID second one is memory consumed ) , in this case,
it shows 48378 kb vs 5000 kb of memory that i know that i requested
In order to find the memory leak, we must rely on the tools we use to
measure it, Cristopher can you help me to repeat the same experiment
to know if you see the same behavior ? If so we can start to put -m on
each docker image to limit the memory size ( 2GB should be enough
right ? )
WIP
regards
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 10:33 PM Victor Rodriguez <vm.rod25 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Can we consider the track of vm used by the running proces from /proc? we can work on a script using psstop(0) or other similar tool,what do you think. This might help us to find the process is consuming the memory over the time
>
> I also see the same problem of consuming almost 90% of the memory not only in all in one systems but also in duplex
>
> (0) https://github.com/clearlinux/psstop
>
> Regards
> Victor Rodriguez
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019, 21:59 Cordoba Malibran, Erich <erich.cordoba.malibran at intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In this case we have:
>>
>> HugePages_Total: 34104
>> HugePages_Free: 34104
>> HugePages_Rsvd: 0
>> HugePages_Surp: 0
>>
>> So, I'm not sure if it can be related with 1825814.
>>
>> Also, for people not seeing this issue, how much memory do you have in your baremetal systems? What's the minimum required memory for running an AIO system. Our failing system have 97 GB and free -h shows.
>>
>> total used free shared buff/cache available
>> Mem: 93G 84G 3.2G 66M 5.6G 4.8G
>> Swap: 0B 0B 0B
>>
>>
>> A couple months ago I reported a similar issue[0], in that case after three days in stand-by the system started to throw Out of Memory errors. Does anyone has performed a longevity test for some days? Maybe the working systems might fail after a while if the memory usage keeps increasing over time.
>>
>> -Erich
>>
>> [0] http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/2019-February/002923.html
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Li, Cheng1" <cheng1.li at intel.com>
>> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:29 PM
>> To: "Lemus Contreras, Cristopher J" <cristopher.j.lemus.contreras at intel.com>, "Miller, Frank" <Frank.Miller at windriver.com>, "Perez Ibarra, Maria G" <maria.g.perez.ibarra at intel.com>, "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
>>
>> Actually, I had also reported the memory issue[1] days ago.
>> Memory exhaust happens because so little 4K memory is allocated for system/software load.
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1825814
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Cheng
>>
>> From: Lemus Contreras, Cristopher J [mailto:cristopher.j.lemus.contreras at intel.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2019 1:50 AM
>> To: Miller, Frank <Frank.Miller at windriver.com>; Perez Ibarra, Maria G <maria.g.perez.ibarra at intel.com>; starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> We had a zoom call with Al Bailey to troubleshoot the issues that we are observing. The bug where a single CPU was taking all of the workload is resolved.
>>
>> What we observed seems to be an issue with memory exhaust, additional information was gathered an added to this bug for further troubleshooting: https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1826308
>>
>> If additional information is required, please, just let us know.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards,
>>
>> Cristopher Lemus
>>
>> From: "Miller, Frank" <mailto:Frank.Miller at windriver.com>
>> Date: Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 8:24 AM
>> To: "Perez Ibarra, Maria G" <mailto:maria.g.perez.ibarra at intel.com>, "mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io" <mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
>> Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
>>
>> Maria:
>>
>> It looks like the commit referenced yesterday [1] is not addressing the issue in your BM labs. Can you set up a live debug session so that some container SMEs can investigate?
>>
>> Frank
>> [1] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/655240/
>>
>> From: Perez Ibarra, Maria G [mailto:maria.g.perez.ibarra at intel.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2019 12:12 AM
>> To: mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>> Subject: [Starlingx-discuss] [Containers] Sanity Test - ISO 20190424
>>
>> Status of the Sanity Test for last CENGN ISO: bootimage.iso from 2019-APRIL-24 (http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/20190424T145954Z/)
>>
>> Status: RED
>>
>> ===========================================
>>
>> Sanity Test is executed in a Containers – Bare Metal Environment
>>
>> AIO - Simplex
>>
>> Setup Manual [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [FAIL]| 40 TCs FAIL
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [FAIL]| 07 TCs FAIL
>>
>> TOTAL: 57 TCS [Fail : 47]
>>
>> AIO – Duplex
>>
>> Setup Manual [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity OpenStack 52 TCs [FAIL] | 42 TCs FAIL
>> Sanity Platform 05 TCs [FAIL] | 05 TCs FAIL
>>
>> TOTAL: 57 TCS [Fail : 47 TCs]
>>
>> Standard - Local Storage (2+2)
>>
>> Setup Manual [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [PASS]
>>
>> TOTAL: 57 TCS PASS
>>
>> Standard - Dedicated Storage (2+2+2)
>>
>> Setup Manual [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity OpenStack 52 TCs [PASS]
>> Sanity Platform 05 TCs [PASS]
>>
>> TOTAL: 57 TCS PASS
>>
>>
>>
>> Sanity Test is executed in a Containers - Virtual Environment
>>
>> AIO - Simplex
>>
>> Setup 04 TCs [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [FAIL]
>>
>> TOTAL: [ 61 TCs PASS ] [Fail : 57 TCs]
>>
>>
>> AIO - Duplex
>>
>> Setup 04 TCs [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [FAIL]
>>
>> TOTAL: [ 61 TCs PASS ] [Fail : 57 TCs]
>>
>>
>> Standard – Local Storage
>>
>> Setup 04 TCs [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [FAIL]
>>
>> TOTAL: [ 61 TCs PASS ] [Fail : 57 TCs]
>>
>>
>> Standard – Dedicated Storage
>>
>> Setup 04 TCs [PASS]
>> Provisioning 01 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity OpenStack 49 TCs [FAIL]
>> Sanity Platform 07 TCs [FAIL]
>>
>> TOTAL: [ 61 TCs PASS ] [Fail : 57 TCs]
>>
>> - some pods are failing during BM sanity execution. https://bugs.launchpad.net/starlingx/+bug/1826308
>> - Sanity Bare metal was tested with : http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/20190424T145954Z/
>> - Sanity Virtual was tested with : http://mirror.starlingx.cengn.ca/mirror/starlingx/master/centos/20190424T013000Z/
>> - Tomorrow in sanity virtual we will perform a double check with the latest ISO that includes the fixes.
>>
>> For more detail of the tests: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/StarlingX/Test/SanityTests#Sanity-OpenStack
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Maria G.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlingx-discuss mailing list
>> Starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
>> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss
More information about the Starlingx-discuss
mailing list