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

    VDI_IO_ERROR Continuous Replication on clean install.

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved Xen Orchestra
    66 Posts 7 Posters 7.1k Views 8 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.
    • Y Offline
      yomono @olivierlambert
      last edited by

      @olivierlambert In my case, I'm indeed using the latest commit. I played around with old commits yesterday (as old as two or three months) but same result. Right now, I'm using the latest (commited an hour ago).
      I can share my SMlogs if you want but I'm also getting the "SR_NOT SUPPORTED" error. I tried to backup different VMs on different sources servers, and to different servers destinations. My next try will be reinstalling XO

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

        Indeed, try to wipe it entirely, and rebuild.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Tristis OrisT Offline
          Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
          last edited by

          @olivierlambert that a old problem) but yes, usually about latest. Just repeated all tests on 3c7d3.

          1. CR stop working right after clean 8.2.1 installation. at same day.
          2. replaced FC to iscsi (only bcz i need iscsi here 😃 ), created new LUN > same story.
          3. 8.2.0 clean install, no updated - CR works.
          4. don't tried usual backups to this SR, don't need them here.
          5. VM migration works at any setup.

          problem only with one storage Dell EMC PowerVault ME4012. all other huawei, iscsi - works fine. But not sure if i have another clean 8.2.1 pools. Maybe only some nodes.

          logs now. I'm doing 2 CR backups.

          1. Xen 8.2.1, clean host, no any VM. iscsi 60Tb lun. Xen show only 50Tb
          Jan 16 15:15:30 test SMGC: [10010] SR f3fd ('LUN') (2 VDIs in 2 VHD trees):
          Jan 16 15:15:30 test SMGC: [10010]         a459d14f[VHD](50.000G//50.105G|ao)
          Jan 16 15:15:30 test SMGC: [10010]         1789f7a7[VHD](50.000G//50.105G|ao)
          
          Jan 16 15:15:47 test SMGC: [10338] SR f3fd ('LUN') (1 VDIs in 1 VHD trees):
          Jan 16 15:15:47 test SMGC: [10338]         a459d14f[VHD](50.000G//50.105G|ao)
          Jan 16 15:15:47 test SMGC: [10338]
          

          here it 60Tb.
          9623bb15-87f4-4396-8165-b98c480cb25d-изображение.png

          2 vms, 2 error - SR_NOT_SUPPORTED

          Jan 16 15:10:43 test SM: [6596] result: {'params_nbd': 'nbd:unix:/run/blktap-control/nbd/f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b/1789f7a7-05a0-411c-aa80-dcc659f8b45f', 'o_direct_reason': 'SR_NOT_SUPPORTED', 'params': '/dev/sm/backend/f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b/1789f7a7-05a0-411c-aa80-dcc659f8b45f', 'o_direct': True, 'xenstore_data': {'scsi/0x12/0x80': 'AIAAEjE3ODlmN2E3LTA1YTAtNDEgIA==', 'scsi/0x12/0x83': 'AIMAMQIBAC1YRU5TUkMgIDE3ODlmN2E3LTA1YTAtNDExYy1hYTgwLWRjYzY1OWY4YjQ1ZiA=', 'vdi-uuid': '1789f7a7-05a0-411c-aa80-dcc659f8b45f', 'mem-pool': 'f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b'}}
          Jan 16 15:10:49 test SM: [6834] result: {'params_nbd': 'nbd:unix:/run/blktap-control/nbd/f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b/a459d14f-ae92-4a77-8574-30442126624b', 'o_direct_reason': 'SR_NOT_SUPPORTED', 'params': '/dev/sm/backend/f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b/a459d14f-ae92-4a77-8574-30442126624b', 'o_direct': True, 'xenstore_data': {'scsi/0x12/0x80': 'AIAAEmE0NTlkMTRmLWFlOTItNGEgIA==', 'scsi/0x12/0x83': 'AIMAMQIBAC1YRU5TUkMgIGE0NTlkMTRmLWFlOTItNGE3Ny04NTc0LTMwNDQyMTI2NjI0YiA=', 'vdi-uuid': 'a459d14f-ae92-4a77-8574-30442126624b', 'mem-pool': 'f3fd46f7-5ce4-e5e0-53e9-059ce4775a7b'}}
          

          and some small like

          Jan 16 15:14:30 test SM: [9387] Failed to lock /var/lock/sm/.nil/lvm on first attempt, blocked by PID 9357
          	Line  184: Jan 16 15:10:29 test SM: [6376] Failed to lock /var/lock/sm/.nil/lvm on first attempt, blocked by PID 6348
          	Line  571: Jan 16 15:10:59 test SM: [7141] Failed to lock /var/lock/sm/.nil/lvm on first attempt, blocked by PID 7115
          	Line  717: Jan 16 15:11:30 test SM: [7457] Failed to lock /var/lock/sm/.nil/lvm on first attempt, blocked by PID 7428
          	Line 1927: Jan 16 15:15:43 test SM: [10146] unlink of attach_info failed
          

          nothing more with error status at log.

          1. because of weird size, tried 8.2.1 with iscsi 20Tb LUN.
            same result SR_NOT_SUPPORTED.

          2. now 8.2.0 clean install, no any updates.
            it works.

          here both hosts connected to same SR.
          56fe4456-4d1b-4fc7-85b5-6ecfd6090421-изображение.png

          1. 8.2.0 full updates > 8.2.1 release/yangtze/master/58
            CR still working.

          4.1. unmount LUN, mount again.
          working.

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

            I have no idea, sorry. So to recap:

            • doesn't work on a 8.2.1 fresh install with updates
            • works on older 8.2.0
            • work on 8.2.0 updated to 8.2.1

            It doesn't sound like an XO bug in your case.

            Tristis OrisT Y 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • Tristis OrisT Offline
              Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
              last edited by

              @olivierlambert yes. so what to do next?)

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

                Trying to figure the setup so we can try to reproduce, and also switching various things until there's a clear pattern.

                Eg: can you try with an NFS share to see if you have the same issue? If it's iSCSI related, that would help us to investigate.

                Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • Tristis OrisT Offline
                  Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
                  last edited by

                  i can't, this is only SAN storage.
                  any point to test on 8.3 alpha?

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

                    You can, it's still another test that might help us to pinpoint something

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • Y Offline
                      yomono @olivierlambert
                      last edited by

                      @olivierlambert I would like to add that after this recap I realized... I also had to reinstall XCP so in my case it's also a fresh 8.2.1 install! At least. knowing that, I can do a 8.2.0 + upgrade installation.. (that's what I used to have). I can also try 8.3 alpha, it's not like I have anything to lose at this point (that server is only to contain XO, there is nothing else there)
                      Anyways.. the fresh 8.2.1 install is definitely the common point here

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

                        Also with iSCSI storage, right?

                        Y 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • Y Offline
                          yomono @olivierlambert
                          last edited by

                          @olivierlambert not really. This time is just local ext storage, SATA drives.

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

                            In LVM or thin? It might be 2 different problems, so I'm trying to sort this out.

                            Y Tristis OrisT 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • Y Offline
                              yomono @olivierlambert
                              last edited by

                              @olivierlambert both! I have both mixed in my servers and I tried in both when I did the tests

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • Tristis OrisT Offline
                                Tristis Oris Top contributor
                                last edited by

                                just remember i have one server with fresh 8.2.1 and nfs backups to TrueNAS. it working.
                                will do other tests tomorrow.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • Tristis OrisT Offline
                                  Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
                                  last edited by

                                  @olivierlambert
                                  sr_not_supported that not a error and not a reason. That because of default multipath Dell config for 3xxx series. Persist at 8.2.0 where CR working, so that just a warning.
                                  As we have no any problems before, we never investigate to this setting. My bad again 😃 yay.

                                  Replaced it to official for 4xxx and this warning gone. I see at 8.3 it already more universal for any generation.

                                          device {
                                                  vendor "DellEMC"
                                                  product "ME4"
                                                  path_grouping_policy "group_by_prio"
                                                  path_checker "tur"
                                                  hardware_handler "1 alua"
                                                  prio "alua"
                                                  failback immediate
                                                  path_selector "service-time 0"
                                          }
                                  

                                  since it no default config for huawei, so we always used the official one.

                                          device {
                                                  vendor                  "HUAWEI"
                                                  product                 "XSG1"
                                                  path_grouping_policy multibus
                                                  path_checker            tur
                                                  prio                    const
                                                  path_selector           "round-robin 0"
                                                  failback                immediate
                                                  fast_io_fail_tmo        5
                                                  dev_loss_tmo            30
                                          }
                                  
                                  
                                  • 8.2.1:

                                  • CR not working:
                                    both huawei, dell iscsi - multipath enabled
                                    both huawei, dell iscsi - multipath disabled

                                  • working:
                                    nfs vm disk
                                    local thin\ext
                                    local thick\lvm

                                  • 8.3

                                  • working:
                                    both huawei, dell iscsi - multipath enabled
                                    local thick\lvm

                                  and now interesting. After i solved this false warning, detach extra hosts from pool, detach all additional links (trunk, backup) to decrease comunications and log itself - it's no any SMlog generated during backup task.

                                  MP enabled - with 2nd link for backup https://pastebin.com/URcnDckR
                                  MP enabled - only Mng link, no SMlog generated https://pastebin.com/RHw40uzg

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

                                    🤔 I have the impression it's good news, but I'm not 100% sure to get it, can you rephrase a bit your conclusion?

                                    Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • Tristis OrisT Offline
                                      Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
                                      last edited by

                                      if i have no smlog - xen\dom0 not related with backup task. right?
                                      smlog that usualy i got during this 5min have no any errors anyway, only some locking operations.
                                      And it always takes 5min, some hardcoded timings?

                                      don't forget that problem also happens with FC connection, so it may concern any block based storage types.

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

                                        I don't understand your sentence, can you take time to re-read it or rephrase it, because I doesn't make sense to me, sorry 😞

                                        What do you mean by "if i have no smlog - xen\dom0 not related with backup task. right?"?

                                        Tristis OrisT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • Tristis OrisT Offline
                                          Tristis Oris Top contributor @olivierlambert
                                          last edited by

                                          i mean it could be XO issue, since it not communicate with xen. Otherwise it should write some logs.

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

                                            I don't see the logical connection with XO, since it works on some SR and not on others. XO has no idea (or doesn't care) about the underlying storage.

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