Finally upgraded to 11 today, classic UI locking up for 3+ minutes

[diskdiddler]

Anyone seeing this?

I'm trying to set up a VM - a very conservative one at that with only 512MB memory and 1 core, admitedly my server is a weak one, but the damn UI is just 'dying' with regularity.
Is anyone else seeing this?

 

[diskdiddler]

NOTE: The system loads are only
0.60, 0.77, 0.81

At time of posting.

 

[dlavigne]

Which build version (System -> Information)?

 

[SweetAndLow]

Anyone seeing this?

I'm trying to set up a VM - a very conservative one at that with only 512MB memory and 1 core, admitedly my server is a weak one, but the damn UI is just 'dying' with regularity.
Is anyone else seeing this?

FreeNAS version and hardware specs need to be included. No one can help you with the info you provided.

Knowing what your boot media is would be nice but I'll just give you generic advice of get new boot media and reinstall.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[gpsguy]

512MB RAM. Try 8GB as recommended. I wouldn't even attempt it with less than 4GB. I always give my FreeNAS VM's 8GB.

 

[diskdiddler]

Freenas version and hardware specs need to be included. No one can help you with the info you provided.

Knowing what your boot media is would be nice but I'll just give you generic advice of get new boot media and reinstall.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

My specs are in my signature, I've upgraded to the latest version as of the date of posting, why would I post about upgrading to 11 and not run the latest edition? That's twice you've done this to one of my threads.

FreeNAS-11.0-U3 (c5dcf4416)

Thanks for the bump at least.

 

[diskdiddler]

512MB RAM. Try 8GB as recommended. I wouldn't even attempt it with less than 4GB. I always give my FreeNAS VM's 8GB.

No, the VM I was creating had 512MB, my system has 16GB - it's in my signature.
Also I don't want to encroach too heavily on the system itself, it's a bit weak, so I'm attempting to run a very lite version of linux to run pi-hole on to play with. (Likely "DietPi"

 

[diskdiddler]

Note according to the graph, it looks like FreeNAS 11 slightly chews more system resources than 11.

 

[SweetAndLow]

My specs are in my signature, I've upgraded to the latest version as of the date of posting, why would I post about upgrading to 11 and not run the latest edition? That's twice you've done this to one of my threads.

FreeNAS-11.0-U3 (c5dcf4416)

Thanks for the bump at least.

The rules do not say to put your specs in your signature. I suggest you do back and read them if you plan on getting help here.

Signatures are not visible on any mobile platform.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

 

[Stux]

Could one of your drives be locking up? Do they support TLER? 3+ minutes is the default timeout on errors on drives which don't support (or have preconfigured) sensible TLER type timeouts.

Alternatively, could also be the boot media.

Is any swap in use?

 

[gpsguy]

Sorry, I thought you were trying to virtualize FreeNAS with 512MB RAM.

No, the VM I was creating had 512MB

 

[dlavigne]

Note according to the graph, it looks like FreeNAS 11 slightly chews more system resources than 11.

Anything in /var/log/messages around the time the UI dies?

 

[Chris Moore]

My specs are in my signature, I've upgraded to the latest version as of the date of posting, why would I post about upgrading to 11 and not run the latest edition? That's twice you've done this to one of my threads.

You can't see the signature from the Tapatalk app. It makes it easier for everyone if you don't count on that being seen or if you say it is in the sig so people on Tapatalk know to circle back later when they are in a web browser.

Please do give us more info though, on first glance I would say it might be the fact that you have four jails running already and it is only a 2.2ghz dual core AMD Turion. You might be over taxing the system. What are the other jails and what are they doing and what is the one supposed to be doing that is crashing?

 

[diskdiddler]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies, sorry about the signature thing.


So my 4 jails are
SabNZB, QBit, SickRage and Couchpotato. - bear in mind these have all been running for 12+ months and the general system utilisation is very, very little, furthermore when they aren't busy doing stuff, it's virtually idle.


Also note, the VM I was creating was 1 processor, low amount of memory.

I've done further testing, I can virtually reproduce this now. I'm curious if there's a way to pull a log for it or something easily?

If I shut down the VM and wait 10 minutes, WebUI works again.

 

[Stux]

Try grabbing a top capture via ssh while the UI is locked up

 

[SweetAndLow]

Hey guys, thanks for the replies, sorry about the signature thing.


So my 4 jails are
SabNZB, QBit, SickRage and Couchpotato. - bear in mind these have all been running for 12+ months and the general system utilisation is very, very little, furthermore when they aren't busy doing stuff, it's virtually idle.


Also note, the VM I was creating was 1 processor, low amount of memory.

I've done further testing, I can virtually reproduce this now. I'm curious if there's a way to pull a log for it or something easily?

If I shut down the VM and wait 10 minutes, WebUI works again.

This is super clear that you're just over using your system. Probably running out of memory.

 

[diskdiddler]

This is super clear that you're just over using your system. Probably running out of memory.

Nothing of the sort, making assumptions is bad, please stop.

Machine ran flawlessly for 18 months with 8GB of memory and FIVE jails.
Purchased an extra 8GB to attempt to eliminate an issue with one particular jail, didn't work.
(Bare in mind I've provisioned the VM with an entire 768MB of memory and 1 core too.)

Code:

last pid: 59010;  load averages:  0.44,  0.49,  0.47	up 2+22:40:35  15:27:03
82 processes:  2 running, 80 sleeping
CPU: 49.0% user,  0.0% nice,  6.9% system,  0.0% interrupt, 44.1% idle
Mem: 192M Active, 1327M Inact, 14G Wired, 418M Free
ARC: 12G Total, 3498M MFU, 7482M MRU, 2344K Anon, 161M Header, 746M Other
Swap: 12G Total, 141M Used, 12G Free, 1% Inuse

  PID USERNAME	THR PRI NICE   SIZE	RES STATE   C   TIME	WCPU COMMAND
58993 root		  1  80	0   237M 59408K CPU1	1   0:03  95.53% python3.6
11921 root		 13  20	0   847M 24872K kqread  1   5:54  10.34% bhyve
13486 media		16  20	0   479M   297M select  1  27:56   0.25% python2.7
2882 root		 10  52	0 53312K 19048K uwait   1   8:54   0.19% consul
58991 root		  1  20	0 24276K  3832K CPU0	0   0:00   0.15% top
8073 media		 2  20	0   369M   174M kqread  0  16:02   0.12% python2.7
12950 media		26  20	0   186M 37060K select  1   1:42   0.11% python2.7
11643 media		26  20	0   158M 34496K select  1   4:32   0.11% python2.7
  205 root		  6  20	0   403M 83484K kqread  1   0:33   0.07% python3.6
8477 root		  9  20	0   145M 12400K select  1   2:04   0.03% qbittorre
22700 root		  2  20	0   127M 31748K select  0  11:18   0.03% python3.6
2746 www		   1  20	0 30984K  1116K kqread  1   0:14   0.01% nginx
11803 root		  6  20	0   149M 37212K select  1   0:25   0.01% python2.7
58987 root		  1  20	0 82852K  7468K select  1   0:00   0.01% sshd
9980 root		  6  20	0   145M 41436K select  1   0:25   0.01% python2.7
4963 root		  6  20	0   179M 38348K select  0   0:25   0.01% python2.7

 

[diskdiddler]

BTW that Python 3.6 which is pegging 95% cpu there (I think that's how to interpret it) is phasing in and out, oddly.

Code:

last pid: 59102;  load averages:  0.33,  0.45,  0.45	up 2+22:41:59  15:28:27
80 processes:  1 running, 79 sleeping
CPU:  4.9% user,  0.0% nice,  1.6% system,  0.0% interrupt, 93.5% idle
Mem: 146M Active, 1329M Inact, 14G Wired, 464M Free
ARC: 12G Total, 3498M MFU, 7482M MRU, 2216K Anon, 161M Header, 746M Other
Swap: 12G Total, 141M Used, 12G Free, 1% Inuse

  PID USERNAME	THR PRI NICE   SIZE	RES STATE   C   TIME	WCPU COMMAND
11921 root		 13  20	0   847M 24872K kqread  0   6:03  10.11% bhyve
 3031 root		 12  20	0   225M 27184K nanslp  1  12:40   1.74% collectd
13486 media		16  20	0   479M   297M select  0  27:57   0.27% python2.7
 8073 media		 3  20	0   369M   174M kqread  0  16:02   0.24% python2.7
 2882 root		 10  52	0 53312K 19048K uwait   1   8:54   0.20% consul
58991 root		  1  20	0 24276K  3844K CPU1	1   0:00   0.14% top
12950 media		26  20	0   186M 37060K select  0   1:42   0.11% python2.7
11643 media		26  20	0   158M 34496K select  0   4:32   0.10% python2.7
 8477 root		  9  20	0   145M 12400K select  1   2:04   0.06% qbittorre
22700 root		  2  20	0   127M 31748K select  0  11:18   0.03% python3.6
 2888 root		 10  20	0 33520K  7144K uwait   1   0:24   0.03% consul-al
11803 root		  6  20	0   149M 37212K select  1   0:25   0.01% python2.7
 9980 root		  6  20	0   145M 41436K select  0   0:25   0.01% python2.7
58987 root		  1  20	0 82852K  7468K select  1   0:00   0.01% sshd
 4963 root		  6  20	0   179M 38348K select  0   0:25   0.01% python2.7
 2809 root		  1  20	0   407M 90364K kqread  1   0:20   0.01% uwsgi

10 seconds later.

 

[diskdiddler]

By the way, this graph may be of use.
_please_ bear in mind, I've only 'spun up' this VM for maybe 5 hours total out of that time. So clearly FN11 does have reasonably higher overhead than FN9

Should I upgrade the pool? Would that reduce load?

 

[Chris Moore]

(Bare in mind I've provisioned the VM with an entire 768MB of memory and 1 core too.)

But you only have a dual core system. Take one for the VM and there is only one left for FreeNAS and all the other jails to share. It does appear that you are over burdening that teeny tiny processor.