XCP-ng
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Alert: Control Domain Memory Usage

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved Compute
    194 Posts 21 Posters 201.4k Views 16 Watching
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • F Offline
      fasterfourier
      last edited by

      One more observation here. This issue does not occur on a different pool of ours that's also running CH8.2LTSR. That pool has lower loading overall, 2 hosts instead of 7, and does not contain any NICs using the ixgbe driver. Other aspects of the pool are identical.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
      • stormiS Offline
        stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team @stormi
        last edited by

        @stormi said in Alert: Control Domain Memory Usage:

        Before I realized that not every affected host was using the ixgbe driver, contrarily to what I initially thought, I built an alternate driver from the latest sources from Intel.

        So, even if there's little hope that it will fix anything, here's how to install it (on XCP-ng 8.1 or 8.2):

        yum install intel-ixgbe-alt --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
        reboot
        

        Has anyone tested the updated ixgbe driver?

        daveD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
        • daveD Offline
          dave @stormi
          last edited by

          @stormi

          I upgraded a pool which was affected from 8.1 to 8.2 this weekend and installed the driver on one of the Hosts. Its a little early, but as you can see, there seems to be a difference in the memory usage:

          Stock Driver

          c53f2add-8bbe-4203-bba8-97e94b466c56-image.png

          Stromis Driver:

          57bf6a63-eff5-47ca-a155-b918c12b95b2-image.png

          One can allready see a constanty, slowly growing mem-usage in "small steps" on the Server with the stock driver, wheras the server with stormis driver seems to be stable.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • olivierlambertO Offline
            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
            last edited by

            Indeed, sounds better in any case! Thanks a lot @dave for the feedback.

            For everyone else with the issue: please try the same and report. Maybe we found the culprit!

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • olivierlambertO Offline
              olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
              last edited by

              That's really likely the problem all along.

              See https://sourceforge.net/p/e1000/bugs/633/#af80/154d

              So our alt driver is indeed fixing it 🙂

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • M Offline
                MrMike
                last edited by

                Good job guys!

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • olivierlambertO Offline
                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                  last edited by

                  A big thanks for the link that @andyhhp provided to confirm the problem 🙂

                  delafD D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • delafD Offline
                    delaf @olivierlambert
                    last edited by

                    I have installed intel-ixgbe-alt-5.9.4-1.xcpng8.1.x86_64 on my server (268).
                    I'll check in some days if I still have the problem or not.

                    Thank you guys!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • D Offline
                      daKju @olivierlambert
                      last edited by

                      @olivierlambert is there a plan to deploy the alt-driver over the xcp-ng update or should we installed by the xcp-ng-testing repo?
                      THX for the good job guys 👍 😊

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • stormiS Offline
                        stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                        last edited by

                        I'm going to build a driver package that only has the patch that is thought to fix the memory issue and let everyone here test it. If the results are good, then it will become an official update.

                        delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • delafD Offline
                          delaf @stormi
                          last edited by delaf

                          @stormi
                          Screenshot 2021-03-04 at 21.21.16.png
                          The 2 servers have been reinstalled with an up to date 8.2. They host each 2 VMs that are doing the same thing (~100Mb/s of netdata stream).

                          The right one has the 5.9.4-1.xcpng8.2, the left one has 5.5.2-2.xcpng8.2.

                          The patch seem to be OK for me.

                          J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • stormiS Offline
                            stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                            last edited by

                            Announcement

                            Here's an updated ixgbe driver package that is meant as an update candidate without updating to a higher version. If need all feedback we can get on this one, because this is the candidate for the official fix as would be delivered to everyone. Of course the intel-igb-alt will remain available for those who need a more recent driver, and I even moved it to the updates repository so that one doesn't need to add --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing to install it anymore.

                            To test the official update candidate on XCP-ng 8.1 or 8.2.

                            • If you had previously installed intel-ixgbe-alt:
                              • yum remove intel-ixgbe-alt -y
                              • Check that the /lib/modules/4.19.0+1/override/ixgbe.ko file was properly deleted. I've seen, once, a situation where a .ko file from an -alt package wasn't deleted, so I'm being cautious here and ask you to report you see that it is still present. In theory, this is impossible, but as I've seen it once I don't know anymore 🙂
                              • Run depmod -a
                            • Update the intel-ixgbe package from the testing repo: yum update intel-ixgbe --enablerepo=xcp-ng-testing
                            • Reboot

                            Note: I'm not 100% sure that I picked the right patch, nor that this patch alone is sufficient.

                            delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • delafD Offline
                              delaf @stormi
                              last edited by

                              @stormi I have installed intel-ixgbe 5.5.2-2.1.xcpng8.2 on my server s0267. Let's wait a some days to check if the memleak is solved by this patch.

                              delafD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • delafD Offline
                                delaf @delaf
                                last edited by

                                @stormi
                                It seems to be good here!

                                Screenshot 2021-03-09 at 08.36.50.png

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                • olivierlambertO Offline
                                  olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                  last edited by

                                  So we found the good patch 🙂 That was a really tricky issue to find!

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • stormiS Offline
                                    stormi Vates 🪐 XCP-ng Team
                                    last edited by stormi

                                    Once again, an issue that was present in vendor drivers but not in the mainline kernel. It's becoming harder and harder to trust vendor drivers. But that's what they require for support...

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                    • F Offline
                                      fasterfourier
                                      last edited by olivierlambert

                                      Our Citrix ticket has been worked and they concluded that the NIC driver is to blame here as well. They had us collect debug info using:

                                      /opt/xensource/libexec/xen-cmdline --set-dom0 page_owner=on
                                      

                                      They then confirmed the memory leak was from the NIC driver. They are intending to release a public hotfix for this issue.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                      • olivierlambertO Offline
                                        olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                        last edited by olivierlambert

                                        Nice to see Citrix are also getting to the same conclusions 🙂

                                        edit: thanks @fasterfourier for your feedback!

                                        F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • F Offline
                                          fasterfourier @olivierlambert
                                          last edited by

                                          @olivierlambert

                                          Official Citrix update has been posted: https://support.citrix.com/article/CTX306529

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                          • olivierlambertO Offline
                                            olivierlambert Vates 🪐 Co-Founder CEO
                                            last edited by

                                            \o/

                                            What I still find really weird is the fact we had report of the issue far longer before Citrix. And we had roughly 10 people affected while Citrix got only 1 report 🤔

                                            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post