Date
1 - 5 of 5
cf v231: Issue with new webdav blobstore job
Rich Wohlstadter
Hi,
We recently upgraded to cf v231 and switched over from using nfs to the new webdav nginx service. We have one environment where the blobstore is very large. The monit startup script for the blobstore job includes a recursive chown of the blobstore disk (chown -R vcap:vcap $RUN_DIR $LOG_DIR $DATA) which depending on the speed of our storage can sometimes take a long enough time for monit to have issues and try and start it again. The first one will finish, but monit will try and start another one due to the delay and logging will start showing errors binding to port 80 and monit will eventually give up saying execution failed. Does that recursive chown need to be there? I compared the blobstore job to the old debian nfs job and the nfs job just did a chown on the toplevel /var/vcap/store/shared directory. This is causing us issues in this environment whenever we need to update/restart that vm. Rich |
|
Marco Nicosia
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Rich Wohlstadter <lethwin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, We solved a similar problem in MySQL by doing that work in a pre-start <https://bosh.io/docs/pre-start.html> script. Timeouts don't apply to pre- and post-start phases, so you can do lengthy transformations there. Would that be a reasonable solution for the WebDav transformation? Unfortunately, those phases haven't got timeouts. The release author is responsible for any failures which result in an infinite hang. -- Marco Nicosia Product Manager Pivotal Software, Inc.
|
|
Rich Wohlstadter
That would probably work. I'm wondering if the recursive is even neccessary. The nfs service didnt do that. Why would the webdav replacement? If it does indeed need to be done, then I'm thinking it should be done outside the monit startup or in a way that does not delay webdav from starting otherwise its going to be a continuing issue depending on customer blobstore sizes.
-Rich |
|
Nicholas Calugar
Hi Rich,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
We investigated and determined the recursive chown was not necessary. The commit is still working it's way through CI, but will hopefully make it in the next CF-Release: https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/116176983 Thanks, Nick On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:02 AM Rich Wohlstadter <lethwin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That would probably work. I'm wondering if the recursive is even --
Nicholas Calugar CAPI Product Manager Pivotal Software, Inc. |
|
Rich Wohlstadter
Excellent. Thanks for your investigation on this.
-Rich |
|