Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

action #164284

closed

[FIRING:1] worker-arm1 (worker-arm1: System load alert openQA worker-arm1 salt system_load_alert_worker-arm1 worker) size:S

Added by livdywan 5 months ago. Updated 5 months ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
High
Assignee:
livdywan
Category:
Regressions/Crashes
Target version:
openQA Project (public) - Ready
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Tags:
alert, osd, infra, reactive work, worker-arm-1

Description

Observation

The load was exceeding our expected limits for 15 minutes, see https://stats.openqa-monitor.qa.suse.de/d/WDworker-arm1/worker-dashboard-worker-arm1?orgId=1

Acceptance Criteria

  • AC1: No alerts about high load for normal openQA workloads on worker-arm1

Suggestions

  • Look for cues on what caused the high load at the time
  • Let's not increase the load limits in grafana for now
    • Confirm that no jobs were failing or incomplete because of the load
    • Decrease the load limits in the worker i.e. workerconf.sls
Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by okurz 5 months ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to High
  • Target version set to Ready
Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by livdywan 5 months ago

  • Subject changed from [FIRING:1] worker-arm1 (worker-arm1: System load alert openQA worker-arm1 salt system_load_alert_worker-arm1 worker) to [FIRING:1] worker-arm1 (worker-arm1: System load alert openQA worker-arm1 salt system_load_alert_worker-arm1 worker) size:S
  • Description updated (diff)
  • Status changed from New to Workable
Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by livdywan 5 months ago

  • Status changed from Workable to In Progress
  • Assignee set to livdywan

I'm taking a look now

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by livdywan 5 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)
  • Status changed from In Progress to Feedback
Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by nicksinger 5 months ago

I wonder if we might need to look closer into what causes this. We're having a 48 core CPU here not being able to handle 10 worker-instances which seems odd to me. But it might be expected if each instance requires a lot of resources (which I haven't checked yet)

Actions
Copy link
 #6

Updated by okurz 5 months ago

  • Due date set to 2024-08-12
Actions
Copy link
 #7

Updated by livdywan 5 months ago

nicksinger wrote in #note-5:

I wonder if we might need to look closer into what causes this. We're having a 48 core CPU here not being able to handle 10 worker-instances which seems odd to me. But it might be expected if each instance requires a lot of resources (which I haven't checked yet)

CRITICAL_LOAD_AVG_THRESHOLD: 16

I was made aware that we have this feature, hence changing to this instead of reducing the number of workers.

Actions
Copy link
 #8

Updated by okurz 5 months ago

  • Due date deleted (2024-08-12)
  • Status changed from Feedback to Resolved

MR is effective. Looking on https://stats.openqa-monitor.qa.suse.de/d/WDworker-arm1/worker-dashboard-worker-arm1?orgId=1&from=1721552583025&to=1722586212383&viewPanel=54694 I see that the load still reaches up to 50 (!). Possibly a load limit of 16 won't be enough for long. If that turns out to be true I suggest to reduce the limit further or learn what makes ARM special. But we already know that ARM, in particular those older machines, are special.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF