log_fs_usage / /var/log directory on pool master filling up constantly
-
One of our pools. (5 hosts, 6 NFS SRs) had this issue when we first deployed it. I engaged with support from Vates and they changed a setting that reduced the frequency of the SR.scan job from 30 seconds to every 2 mins instead. This totally fixed the issue for us going on a year and a half later.
I dug back in our documentation and found the command they gave us
xe host-param-set other-config:auto-scan-interval=120 uuid=<Host UUID>Where hosts UUID is your pool master.
-
@flakpyro said in log_fs_usage / /var/log directory on pool master filling up constantly:
One of our pools. (5 hosts, 6 NFS SRs) had this issue when we first deployed it. I engaged with support from Vates and they changed a setting that reduced the frequency of the SR.scan job from 30 seconds to every 2 mins instead. This totally fixed the issue for us going on a year and a half later.
I dug back in our documentation and found the command they gave us
xe host-param-set other-config:auto-scan-interval=120 uuid=<Host UUID>Where hosts UUID is your pool master.
Thank you very much for checking your documentation and sharing your fix!
I will try your approach on my pool master.Best regards
-
I applied
xe host-param-set other-config:auto-scan-interval=120 uuid=<Host UUID>on my pool master as suggested by @flakpyro and it had a direct impact on the frequency of SR.scan tasks popping up and the amount of log output!
I implemented graylog and remote syslog on my XCP-ng pool after posting the first message of this thread and in the image pasted below you can clearly see the effect of "auto-scan-interval" on the logging output.
I will keep monitoring this but it seems to improve things quite substantially!
Since it appears that multiple users are affected by this it may be a good idea to change the default value within XCP-ng and/or add this to official documentation.
-
@MajorP93 said in log_fs_usage / /var/log directory on pool master filling up constantly:
will keep monitoring this but it seems to improve things quite substantially!
Since it appears that multiple users are affected by this it may be a good idea to change the default value within XCP-ng and/or add this to official documentation.
Reply
nice, but these SR scans have a purpose (when you create/extend an SR, to discover VDIs and ISOs, ...)
on the legitimacy of reducing the period, and the impact on logs, it should be better documented yeahxe host-param-set other-config:auto-scan-interval=120 uuid=<Host UUID>never saw this command line in the documentation, perhaps it should be there with full warnings ?
-
@Pilow correct me if I'm wrong but I think day-to-day operations like VM start/stop, SR attach, VDI create, etc. perform explicit storage calls anyway so they should not depend strongly on this periodic SR.scan which is why I considered applying this safe
-
@MajorP93 I guess so, if someone from Vates team get us the answer as why so frequently perhaps it will enlighten us
-
@Pilow agreed. This shouldn't be the norm. auto-scan-interval=120 is not going to be good for everyone. The majority of people probably don't have any problem with the default value, even in larger deployments.
On the other hand, the real cause of the issue is still elusive.
-
@bvitnik Not really,
what is elusive here is if we can reduce the auto scan frequency and why is set by default to frequent but that to cause the increase of logs is the auto scan is quite clear from MajorP93 test..
The auto scan log shows a lot of lines for each disks and when you have like 400 - 500 disks and you scan them every 30 seconds you definitely have a lot of logs.I think the log partition is quite small to be honest but the logs is also very chatty.
-
@denis.grilli I understand... but my experience is that even with the default scanning interval the logs become the problem when you get in the range of tens of SRs, thousands of disks. MajorP93's infra is quite small so I believe there is something additional that is spamming the logs... or there is some additional trigger for SR scan.
Update: maybe the default value changed in recent versions?
-
Well I am not entirely sure but in case the effect of SR.scan on logging gets amplified by the size of virtual disks aswell (in the addition to the number of virtual disks) it might be caused by that. I have a few virtual machines that have a) many disks (up to 9) and b) large disks.
I know it is rather bad design to run VMs this way (in my case these are file servers), I understand that using a NAS and mounting a share is better in this case but I had to migrate these VMs from the old environment and keep them running the way they are.
That is the only thing I could think of that could result in SR.scan having this big of an impact in my pool. -
@MajorP93 throw in multiple garbage collections during snap/desnap of backups on a XOSTOR SR, and these SR scans really get in the way
