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)
Fix Released
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  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related questions

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.