On 1/1/11 9:26 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:59:10PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >> On 01.01.2011 17:46, Kostik Belousov wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >>>> On 01.01.2011 17:12, Kostik Belousov wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Jan 01, 2011 at 05:00:56PM +0100, Beat G?tzi wrote: >>>>>> On 01.01.2011 16:45, Kostik Belousov wrote: >>>>>>> Check the output of sysctl kern.maxvnodes and vfs.numvnodes. I suspect >>>>>>> they are quite close or equial. If yes, consider increasing maxvnodes. >>>>>>> Another workaround, if you have huge nested directories hierarhy, is >>>>>>> to set vfs.vlru_allow_cache_src to 1. >>>>>> Thanks for the hint. kern.maxvnodes and vfs.numvnodes were equal: >>>>>> # sysctl kern.maxvnodes vfs.numvnodes >>>>>> kern.maxvnodes: 100000 >>>>>> vfs.numvnodes: 100765 >>>>>> >>>>>> I've increased kern.maxvnodes and the problem was gone until >>>>>> vfs.numvnodes reached the value of kern.maxvnodes again: >>>>>> # sysctl kern.maxvnodes vfs.numvnodes >>>>>> kern.maxvnodes: 150000 >>>>>> vfs.numvnodes: 150109 >>>>> The processes should be stuck in "vlruwk" state, that can be >>>>> checked with ps or '^T' on the terminal. >>>> Yes, there are various processes in "vlruwk" state, >>>> >>>>>> As the directory structure is quite huge on this server I've set >>>>>> vfs.vlru_allow_cache_src to one now. >>>>> Did it helped ? >>>> No, it doesn't looks like setting vfs.vlru_allow_cache_src helped. The >>>> problem was gone when I increased kern.maxvnodes until vfs.numvnodes >>>> reached that level. I've stopped all running deamons but numvnodes >>>> doesn't decrease. >>> Stopping the daemons would not decrease the count of cached vnodes. >>> What you can do is to call unmount on the filesystems. Supposedly, the >>> filesystems are busy and unmount shall fail, but it will force freed >>> the vnodes that are unused by any process. >> That freed around 1500 vnodes. At the moment the vfs.numvnodes doesn't >> increase rapidly and the server is usable. I will keep an eye it to see >> if I run into the same problem again. > This is too small amount of vnodes to be freed for the typical system, > and it feels like a real vnode leak. It would be helpful if you tried > to identify the load that causes the situation to occur. > > You are on the UFS, right ? try running sockstat to a file and looking to see what is open.. it could just be a normal leak.Received on Sun Jan 02 2011 - 00:00:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:10 UTC