Re: [Qemu-block] qcow2 images corruption

[John Snow]

On 02/13/2018 04:41 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> Am 07.02.2018 um 18:06 hat Nicolas Ecarnot geschrieben:
>> TL; DR : qcow2 images keep getting corrupted. Any workaround?
> 
> Not without knowing the cause.
> 
> The first thing to make sure is that the image isn't touched by a second
> process while QEMU is running a VM. The classic one is using 'qemu-img
> snapshot' on the image of a running VM, which is instant corruption (and
> newer QEMU versions have locking in place to prevent this), but we have
> seen more absurd cases of things outside QEMU tampering with the image
> when we were investigating previous corruption reports.
> 
> This covers the majority of all reports, we haven't had a real
> corruption caused by a QEMU bug in ages.
> 
>> After having found (https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1173623) the right
>> logical volume hosting the qcow2 image, I can run qemu-img check on it.
>> - On 80% of my VMs, I find no errors.
>> - On 15% of them, I find Leaked cluster errors that I can correct using
>> "qemu-img check -r all"
>> - On 5% of them, I find Leaked clusters errors and further fatal errors,
>> which can not be corrected with qemu-img.
>> In rare cases, qemu-img can correct them, but destroys large parts of the
>> image (becomes unusable), and on other cases it can not correct them at all.
> 
> It would be good if you could make the 'qemu-img check' output available
> somewhere.
> 
> It would be even better if we could have a look at the respective image.
> I seem to remember that John (CCed) had a few scripts to analyse
> corrupted qcow2 images, maybe we would be able to see something there.
> 

Hi! I did write a pretty simplistic tool for trying to tell the shape of
a corruption at a glance. It seems to work pretty similarly to the other
tool you already found, but it won't hurt anything to run it:

https://github.com/jnsnow/qcheck

(Actually, that other tool looks like it has an awful lot of options.
I'll have to check it out.)

It can print a really upsetting amount of data (especially for very
corrupt images), but in the default case, the simple setting should do
the trick just fine.

You could always put the output from this tool in a pastebin too; it
might help me visualize the problem a bit more -- I find seeing the
exact offsets and locations of where all the various tables and things
to be pretty helpful.

You can also always use the "deluge" option and compress it if you want,
just don't let it print to your terminal:

address@hidden (dev) ~/s/qcheck> ./qcheck -xd
/home/bos/jsnow/src/qemu/bin/git/install_test_f26.qcow2 > deluge.log;
and ls -sh deluge.log
4.3M deluge.log

but it compresses down very well:

address@hidden (dev) ~/s/qcheck> 7z a -t7z -m0=ppmd deluge.ppmd.7z deluge.log
address@hidden (dev) ~/s/qcheck> ls -s deluge.ppmd.7z
316 deluge.ppmd.7z

So I suppose if you want to send along:
(1) The basic output without any flags, in a pastebin
(2) The zipped deluge output, just in case

and I will try my hand at guessing what went wrong.


(Also, maybe my tool will totally choke for your image, who knows. It
hasn't received an overwhelming amount of testing apart from when I go
to use it personally and inevitably wind up displeased with how it
handles certain situations, so ...)

>> What I read similar to my case is :
>> - usage of qcow2
>> - heavy disk I/O
>> - using the virtio-blk driver
>>
>> In the proxmox thread, they tend to say that using virtio-scsi is the
>> solution. Having asked this question to oVirt experts
>> (https://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2018-February/086753.html) but it's
>> not clear the driver is to blame.
> 
> This seems very unlikely. The corruption you're seeing is in the qcow2
> metadata, not only in the guest data. If anything, virtio-scsi exercises
> more qcow2 code paths than virtio-blk, so any potential bug that affects
> virtio-blk should also affect virtio-scsi, but not the other way around.
> 
>> I agree with the answer Yaniv Kaul gave to me, saying I have to properly
>> report the issue, so I'm longing to know which peculiar information I can
>> give you now.
> 
> To be honest, debugging corruption after the fact is pretty hard. We'd
> need the 'qemu-img check' output and ideally the image to do anything,
> but I can't promise that anything would come out of this.
> 
> Best would be a reproducer, or at least some operation that you can link
> to the appearance of the corruption. Then we could take a more targeted
> look at the respective code.
> 
>> As you can imagine, all this setup is in production, and for most of the
>> VMs, I can not "play" with them. Moreover, we launched a campaign of nightly
>> stopping every VM, qemu-img check them one by one, then boot.
>> So it might take some time before I find another corrupted image.
>> (which I'll preciously store for debug)
>>
>> Other informations : We very rarely do snapshots, but I'm close to imagine
>> that automated migrations of VMs could trigger similar behaviors on qcow2
>> images.
> 
> To my knowledge, oVirt only uses external snapshots and creates them
> with QMP. This should be perfectly safe because from the perspective of
> the qcow2 image being snapshotted, it just means that it gets no new
> write requests.
> 
> Migration is something more involved, and if you could relate the
> problem to migration, that would certainly be something to look into. In
> that case, it would be important to know more about the setup, e.g. is
> it migration with shared or non-shared storage?
> 
>> Last point about the versions we use : yes that's old, yes we're planning to
>> upgrade, but we don't know when.
> 
> That would be helpful, too. Nothing is more frustrating that debugging a
> bug in an old version only to find that it's already fixed in the
> current version (well, except maybe debugging and finding nothing).
> 
> Kevin
> 
And, looking at your other email:

"- In the case of oVirt, we are here allowing tens of hosts to connect
to the same LUN. This LUN is then managed by a classical LVM setup, but
I see here no notion of concurrent access management. To date, I still
haven't understood how was managed these concurrent access to the same
LUN with no crash."

I'm hoping someone else on list can chime in with if this safe or not --
I'm not really familiar with how oVirt does things, but as long as the
rest of the stack is sound and nothing else is touching the qcow2 data
area, we should be OK, I'd hope.

(Though the last big qcow2 corruption I had to debug wound up being in
the storage stack and not in QEMU, so I have some prejudices here)




anyway, I'll try to help as best as I'm able, but no promises.

--js