posix_fadvise syslog warnings

Bug #794618 reported by Bob
12
This bug affects 2 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
OpenStack Object Storage (swift)
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Hi

I just noticed that the object-server and object-auditor are writing a lot of warnings about the posix_fadvise function on both my SAIO setup and a multi-node setup. This happens both on Ubuntu 10.04 and Debian Squeeze when using the 1.3 trunk version of swift. The error log contains a lot of lines like this:

Apr 4 14:56:04 blazer1 object-server STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(16, 0, 112, 4) -> 22 (txn: tx3cb4999f-3e3a-4b4c-9131-4aa414e5edc2)
Apr 4 15:00:32 blazer1 object-server STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(16, 0, 116, 4) -> 22 (txn: txea4c9a2c-78e6-464d-94df-2f74734e9ee2)
Apr 4 15:00:48 blazer1 object-server STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(13, 0, 116, 4) -> 22 (txn: txd9da848b-e3c6-4023-9bfe-afd4f204f582)
Apr 4 15:01:03 blazer1 object-server STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(16, 0, 207, 4) -> 22 (txn: txbde0e21d-443e-4d0a-ac6e-2365d8c452e0)
Apr 4 15:51:49 blazer1 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(15, 0, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Apr 4 15:51:49 blazer1 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(15, 1114112, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Apr 4 15:51:49 blazer1 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(15, 2228224, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Apr 4 15:51:49 blazer1 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(15, 3342336, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Apr 4 15:51:49 blazer1 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(15, 4456448, 1114112, 4) -> 22

I managed to trace the following system call in the object-server and it seems that the posix_fadvise funtion is not called correctly (the advice value should be 4 but in this case it is the huge value 0xa00000):
[pid 17125] fadvise64(7, 0, 0, 0xa00000 /* POSIX_FADV_??? */) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)

This makes it hard to read the swift error logs, especially when the auditor is running. Is this a known problem?

Related branches

Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

This bug is based on Question #151641, but I'm seeing the behaviour too.

Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

I am running the current version of Ubuntu and up to date (Linux ukc-ubuntu01 2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:50 UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux).

The type of errors I am seeing :
Jun 8 15:10:59 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 869007360, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:10:59 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 870121472, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 871235584, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 872349696, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 873463808, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 874577920, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 875692032, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 876806144, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 877920256, 1114112, 4) -> 22
Jun 8 15:11:00 ukc-ubuntu01 object-auditor STDOUT: WARNING:root:posix_fadvise(4, 879034368, 1114112, 4) -> 22

Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

(FYI my experience is on multi-node, I have had no need to play with a SAIO implementation)

Revision history for this message
clayg (clay-gerrard) wrote :

what arch are you running?

please see:
https://answers.launchpad.net/swift/+question/151641

Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

Apologies, I thought that would have been evident from the uname -a I posted.

I'm on x86.

Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

ubuntu-11.04-server-i386.iso was my install media.

Revision history for this message
gholt (gholt) wrote :

Quite likely it's a 32 bit kernel problem. We have limited resources so we can't currently support alternatives to what we ourselves use (Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, x86_64 kernel) But any support help / patches are definitely welcome!

Revision history for this message
FUJITA Tomonori (fujita-tomonori-deactivatedaccount) wrote :
Revision history for this message
Bob (rclocal) wrote :

gholt,

Funnily enough, that's my current plan.....to wipe and re-install with 64 bit.

FUJITA Tomonori,

I'll take a look into it, but I fear it may already be too late as I've already started the process of wiping 32 bit. If I get a chance later in the week, I'll try it again in some 32 bit VMs.

Changed in swift:
assignee: nobody → FUJITA Tomonori (fujita-tomonori)
status: New → Fix Committed
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Changed in swift:
milestone: none → 1.4.2
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Changed in swift:
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related questions