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

    XCP-NG vm's extremly slow

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Compute
    45 Posts 6 Posters 13.2k Views 5 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.
    • A Offline
      Andi79
      last edited by

      @fohdeesha

      i would agree that it sounds like an storage problem, but it's unlikley that this happends on 2 brand new machines at the same time and the dom0 should be affected with the same problems when it's a hardware case.

      What does this "vif vif-5-1 vif5.1: Guest Rx stalled" mean? Rx stand for some information recieve?

      fohdeeshaF 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • fohdeeshaF Offline
        fohdeesha Vates 🪐 Pro Support Team @Andi79
        last edited by

        @Andi79 it's impossible to say without more testing, it could be a firmware issue on these boards causing IO stalls or similar, the only way to be sure now is to run some perf tests inside dom0 to confirm it's not VM related, once you get that confirmation, install (or live boot) plain CentOS on one of the machine and test there as well. Are both the SSD and the HDD underneath an mdadm software raid? I suppose it could be a software raid configuration issue as well, but it's hard to say without further testing

        A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • fohdeeshaF Offline
          fohdeesha Vates 🪐 Pro Support Team @Andi79
          last edited by

          @Andi79 the guest RX messages are normal, some OSs like debian etc put unused interfaces in some type of "sleep" mode if I remember correctly and this causes these harmless messages

          F A 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • F Offline
            fred974 @fohdeesha
            last edited by

            I am no expert here but I had vm crashing on me before when transfering data and it was because the VM started its life with a very large amount of RAM. Then it was reduce and the setting in Memory limits (min/max) was messed up.
            What do you have for Memory limits (min/max) and what is the current VM memory?

            A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A Offline
              Andi79 @fohdeesha
              last edited by

              @fohdeesha

              on machine 1 the SSDs (sda/sdb) are a raid 1, the 4tb hdd is no raid
              on machine 2 there is sda/sdb the 960GB SSD raid 1, sdc/sdd a 4TB raid 1

              all raids are software raids. On Machine 1 all configuration was done by xcp-ng during installation, on machine 2 it didn't work to create 2 raids by installer, so i configured it manually during installation

              server 1:

               mdadm --detail /dev/md127
              /dev/md127:
                         Version : 1.0
                   Creation Time : Fri May 13 00:42:01 2022
                      Raid Level : raid1
                      Array Size : 937692352 (894.25 GiB 960.20 GB)
                   Used Dev Size : 937692352 (894.25 GiB 960.20 GB)
                    Raid Devices : 2
                   Total Devices : 2
                     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
              
                   Intent Bitmap : Internal
              
                     Update Time : Thu Jun 16 10:54:29 2022
                           State : active 
                  Active Devices : 2
                 Working Devices : 2
                  Failed Devices : 0
                   Spare Devices : 0
              
              Consistency Policy : bitmap
              
                            Name : localhost:127
                            UUID : 3291ed43:84e67acd:d548e8e9:3de5fa57
                          Events : 3738
              
                  Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
                     0       8        0        0      active sync   /dev/sda
                     1       8       16        1      active sync   /dev/sdb
              
              
              pvs
                Device read short 82432 bytes remaining
                Device read short 82432 bytes remaining
                Device read short 40960 bytes remaining
                WARNING: Not using device /dev/sda3 for PV hmMtFH-xKzv-cAXc-6Ezc-WKhT-TAna-ctQUxC.
                WARNING: PV hmMtFH-xKzv-cAXc-6Ezc-WKhT-TAna-ctQUxC prefers device /dev/md127p3 because device is used by LV.
                PV           VG                                                 Fmt  Attr PSize    PFree  
                /dev/md127p3 VG_XenStorage-745f4736-e407-1a8d-35f2-aa08309722d3 lvm2 a--  <852,74g 418,89g
                /dev/sdc     VG_XenStorage-51542fdd-2993-3d0f-9edb-1a3fa03227b6 lvm2 a--    <3,64t  <1,41t
              
              

              Server 2:

              mdadm --detail /dev/md127
              /dev/md127:
                         Version : 1.0
                   Creation Time : Sat Jun  4 09:56:54 2022
                      Raid Level : raid1
                      Array Size : 937692352 (894.25 GiB 960.20 GB)
                   Used Dev Size : 937692352 (894.25 GiB 960.20 GB)
                    Raid Devices : 2
                   Total Devices : 2
                     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
              
                   Intent Bitmap : Internal
              
                     Update Time : Thu Jun 16 11:00:07 2022
                           State : clean 
                  Active Devices : 2
                 Working Devices : 2
                  Failed Devices : 0
                   Spare Devices : 0
              
              Consistency Policy : bitmap
              
                            Name : localhost:127
                            UUID : b5ab10b2:b89109af:9f4a274a:d7af50b3
                          Events : 4450
              
                  Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
                     0       8       32        0      active sync   /dev/sdc
                     1       8       48        1      active sync   /dev/sdd
              
              mdadm --detail /dev/md126
              /dev/md126:
                         Version : 1.2
                   Creation Time : Sat Jun  4 12:08:56 2022
                      Raid Level : raid1
                      Array Size : 3906886464 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB)
                   Used Dev Size : 3906886464 (3725.90 GiB 4000.65 GB)
                    Raid Devices : 2
                   Total Devices : 2
                     Persistence : Superblock is persistent
              
                   Intent Bitmap : Internal
              
                     Update Time : Thu Jun 16 10:58:21 2022
                           State : active 
                  Active Devices : 2
                 Working Devices : 2
                  Failed Devices : 0
                   Spare Devices : 0
              
              Consistency Policy : bitmap
              
                            Name : klartext2-neu:md126  (local to host klartext2-neu)
                            UUID : 784c25d6:18f3a0c2:ca8fe399:d16ec0e2
                          Events : 35384
              
                  Number   Major   Minor   RaidDevice State
                     0       8        0        0      active sync   /dev/sda
                     1       8       16        1      active sync   /dev/sdb
              
              
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • A Offline
                Andi79 @fohdeesha
                last edited by olivierlambert

                @fohdeesha

                some tests:

                Server 1 / dom0:

                #dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test bs=512 count=10000
                10000+0 Datensätze ein
                10000+0 Datensätze aus
                5120000 Bytes (5,1 MB) kopiert, 0,0339501 s, 151 MB/s
                

                Server 1 / VM 1:

                #dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test bs=512 count=10000
                10000+0 records in
                10000+0 records out
                5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 5,41172 s, 946 kB/s
                

                it really seems to be VM related, but I don't see any reason why

                A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • A Offline
                  Andi79 @Andi79
                  last edited by olivierlambert

                  @Andi79

                  I tested it one VM2 that's on the ssd

                  dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test bs=512 count=10000
                  10000+0 records in
                  10000+0 records out
                  5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 0,0153181 s, 334 MB/s
                  

                  and on VM3, also hdd

                  dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test bs=512 count=10000
                  10000+0 records in
                  10000+0 records out
                  5120000 bytes (5,1 MB) copied, 0,00494598 s, 1,0 GB/s
                  

                  and on VM4, hdd

                  #dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/test bs=512 count=10000
                  10000+0 records in
                  10000+0 records out
                  5120000 bytes (5,1 MB, 4,9 MiB) copied, 82,3517 s, 62,2 kB/s (stopped)
                  

                  the difference is that the first VM and the last VM have running backups with rsync... VM2 and VM3 are on very low load at the moment.

                  it occurs when there is runing anything on the machines

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • A Offline
                    Andi79 @fred974
                    last edited by

                    @fred974 they have 6 - 10GB Ram, but it's not memory related. It's some kind of strange IO Problem that blocks the whole VM that must be some combination of things. The VMs worked without any problems on other hosts, but the Host itself doesn't have any problems (and because there are 2 of them hardware problems are very unlikley).

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • A Offline
                      Andi79 @fohdeesha
                      last edited by

                      @fohdeesha

                      perhaps this helps.

                      dom0

                      mpstat -P ALL
                      Linux 4.19.0+1 (klartext1) 	16.06.2022 	_x86_64_	(12 CPU)
                      
                      12:00:43     CPU    %usr   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft  %steal  %guest  %gnice   %idle
                      12:00:43     all    0,58    0,00    0,89    0,03    0,00    0,37    0,39    0,00    0,00   97,74
                      12:00:43       0    0,57    0,00    1,14    0,02    0,00    1,50    0,38    0,00    0,00   96,39
                      12:00:43       1    0,58    0,00    0,85    0,06    0,00    0,07    0,40    0,00    0,00   98,04
                      12:00:43       2    0,57    0,00    0,85    0,04    0,00    0,11    0,39    0,00    0,00   98,03
                      12:00:43       3    0,57    0,00    0,85    0,02    0,00    0,26    0,39    0,00    0,00   97,91
                      12:00:43       4    0,55    0,00    0,86    0,02    0,00    0,49    0,38    0,00    0,00   97,69
                      12:00:43       5    0,61    0,00    0,88    0,03    0,00    0,17    0,39    0,00    0,00   97,91
                      12:00:43       6    0,60    0,00    0,94    0,03    0,00    0,92    0,40    0,00    0,00   97,11
                      12:00:43       7    0,56    0,00    0,84    0,02    0,00    0,05    0,40    0,00    0,00   98,13
                      12:00:43       8    0,56    0,00    0,84    0,02    0,00    0,29    0,40    0,00    0,00   97,89
                      12:00:43       9    0,57    0,00    0,84    0,02    0,00    0,15    0,40    0,00    0,00   98,03
                      12:00:43      10    0,56    0,00    0,85    0,02    0,00    0,33    0,40    0,00    0,00   97,83
                      12:00:43      11    0,63    0,00    0,91    0,02    0,00    0,09    0,40    0,00    0,00   97,94
                      
                      

                      vm1:

                      mpstat -P ALL
                      Linux 5.15.0-37-generic (backup1) 	16.06.2022 	_x86_64_	(12 CPU)
                      
                      10:02:33     CPU    %usr   %nice    %sys %iowait    %irq   %soft  %steal  %guest  %gnice   %idle
                      10:02:33     all    0,16    0,01    0,06   28,98    0,00    0,03    0,05    0,00    0,00   70,72
                      10:02:33       0    0,08    0,01    0,02   12,98    0,00    0,00    0,01    0,00    0,00   86,89
                      10:02:33       1    0,30    0,02    0,09   42,83    0,00    0,00    0,02    0,00    0,00   56,74
                      10:02:33       2    0,18    0,01    0,07   32,57    0,00    0,00    0,02    0,00    0,00   67,15
                      10:02:33       3    0,20    0,01    0,09   47,56    0,00    0,04    0,08    0,00    0,00   52,01
                      10:02:33       4    0,16    0,01    0,05   28,91    0,00    0,00    0,01    0,00    0,00   70,85
                      10:02:33       5    0,14    0,01    0,04   20,90    0,00    0,00    0,01    0,00    0,00   78,90
                      10:02:33       6    0,16    0,02    0,04   22,59    0,00    0,00    0,03    0,00    0,00   77,17
                      10:02:33       7    0,08    0,01    0,03   17,02    0,00    0,00    0,01    0,00    0,00   82,85
                      10:02:33       8    0,08    0,00    0,03   17,85    0,00    0,00    0,01    0,00    0,00   82,02
                      10:02:33       9    0,09    0,01    0,04   18,09    0,00    0,00    0,03    0,00    0,00   81,74
                      10:02:33      10    0,31    0,01    0,13   47,49    0,00    0,26    0,37    0,00    0,00   51,43
                      10:02:33      11    0,12    0,01    0,05   39,03    0,00    0,00    0,02    0,00    0,00   60,76
                      
                      

                      very high io wait.... but low usr that should be higher because of running rsyncs on user level

                      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • A Offline
                        Andi79 @Andi79
                        last edited by

                        latenz.png

                        reported by munin on the slow VM. xvda has a latency ok 100ms. The problem occurs when there are many small file request like rsync does... and 100ms in sum is a lot. Any idea how I could debug the reason for this?

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

                          To me the issue is with a physical disk in your host, that's used then for your VM.

                          Having much latency on the smartctl command isn't a good sign.

                          A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • A Offline
                            Andi79 @olivierlambert
                            last edited by

                            actually it looks like that the 4TB on Server 1 really has hardware problems.... and the reason why there was the same effect on the other dom is that there was an mounted NFS Share of an machine on the first server..... and the disk errors on this machine where "transfered" to the other dom with the same affects (delaying the whole system).

                            I'm currently migrating all VMs von server1 to server2. I really hope that is the
                            solution for all. Currently rsync is not running on any machine... i will test this later when the VMs are transfered.

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

                              That's very likely the issue yes 🙂

                              A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • A Offline
                                Andi79 @olivierlambert
                                last edited by

                                @olivierlambert

                                just wanted to tell the possible end of the story.... if anyone here ever has an simelar problem :-).

                                Currently it looks like that the Fan caused vibrations on the case that where transmitted to the hdd nearby.... the hdd is an SMR harddisk that seems to have problems with such vibrations.... that caused the problems on server1.

                                server2 had an nfs connection to a vds on server1. When IO was going to 100% because of the hdd error on server1 it caused exactly the same behavior on server2 (no idea why) even when there are no physical disk problems on this device.

                                Overall no XCP-NG problem, but such strange that it's hard to imagine what could cause this at the beginning :).

                                ForzaF fohdeeshaF 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                • ForzaF Offline
                                  Forza @Andi79
                                  last edited by

                                  @Andi79 interesting results. It is known that vibrations can affect performance, but this is the worst I've heard of!

                                  On that note I'd like to mention that SMR drives aren't very performant. As soon as write buffer fills and/or garbage collection kicks in, the performance goes down to a crawl.

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

                                    Hahaha wow. Thanks a lot for the feedback, this is really interesting to know!

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • fohdeeshaF Offline
                                      fohdeesha Vates 🪐 Pro Support Team @Andi79
                                      last edited by

                                      @Andi79 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDacjrSCeq4

                                      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                      • A Offline
                                        Andi79 @fohdeesha
                                        last edited by

                                        @fohdeesha lol :-). ok.... good to now :). Next optimization by decoupling harddisks and fans.... and always be quite on the datacenter :).

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