I am not an expert on that, but, probably these settings will help backfill to go slow and thus less degradation on client IO. You may want to try.. Thanks & Regards Somnath -----Original Message----- From: Robert LeBlanc [mailto:robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:16 PM To: Somnath Roy Cc: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Hammer reduce recovery impact -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Do the recovery options kick in when there is only backfill going on? - ---------------- Robert LeBlanc PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Somnath Roy wrote: > Try all these.. > > osd recovery max active = 1 > osd max backfills = 1 > osd recovery threads = 1 > osd recovery op priority = 1 > > Thanks & Regards > Somnath > > -----Original Message----- > From: ceph-users [mailto:ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert LeBlanc > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 1:56 PM > To: ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Hammer reduce recovery impact > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > We are trying to add some additional OSDs to our cluster, but the impact of the backfilling has been very disruptive to client I/O and we have been trying to figure out how to reduce the impact. We have seen some client I/O blocked for more than 60 seconds. There has been CPU and RAM head room on the OSD nodes, network has been fine, disks have been busy, but not terrible. > > 11 OSD servers: 10 4TB disks with two Intel S3500 SSDs for journals (10GB), dual 40Gb Ethernet, 64 GB RAM, single CPU E5-2640 Quanta S51G-1UL. > > Clients are QEMU VMs. > > [ulhglive-root@ceph5 current]# ceph --version ceph version 0.94.2 (5fb85614ca8f354284c713a2f9c610860720bbf3) > > Some nodes are 0.94.3 > > [ulhglive-root@ceph5 current]# ceph status > cluster 48de182b-5488-42bb-a6d2-62e8e47b435c > health HEALTH_WARN > 3 pgs backfill > 1 pgs backfilling > 4 pgs stuck unclean > recovery 2382/33044847 objects degraded (0.007%) > recovery 50872/33044847 objects misplaced (0.154%) > noscrub,nodeep-scrub flag(s) set > monmap e2: 3 mons at > {mon1=10.217.72.27:6789/0,mon2=10.217.72.28:6789/0,mon3=10.217.72.29:6789/0} > election epoch 180, quorum 0,1,2 mon1,mon2,mon3 > osdmap e54560: 125 osds: 124 up, 124 in; 4 remapped pgs > flags noscrub,nodeep-scrub > pgmap v10274197: 2304 pgs, 3 pools, 32903 GB data, 8059 kobjects > 128 TB used, 322 TB / 450 TB avail > 2382/33044847 objects degraded (0.007%) > 50872/33044847 objects misplaced (0.154%) > 2300 active+clean > 3 active+remapped+wait_backfill > 1 active+remapped+backfilling recovery io 70401 kB/s, 16 objects/s > client io 93080 kB/s rd, 46812 kB/s wr, 4927 op/s > > Each pool is size 4 with min_size 2. > > One problem we have is that the requirements of the cluster changed after setting up our pools, so our PGs are really out of wack. Our most active pool has only 256 PGs and each PG is about 120 GB is size. > We are trying to clear out a pool that has way too many PGs so that we can split the PGs in that pool. I think these large PGs is part of our issues. > > Things I've tried: > > * Lowered nr_requests on the spindles from 1000 to 100. This reduced the max latency sometimes up to 3000 ms down to a max of 500-700 ms. > it has also reduced the huge swings in latency, but has also reduced throughput somewhat. > * Changed the scheduler from deadline to CFQ. I'm not sure if the the OSD process gives the recovery threads a different disk priority or if changing the scheduler without restarting the OSD allows the OSD to use disk priorities. > * Reduced the number of osd_max_backfills from 2 to 1. > * Tried setting noin to give the new OSDs time to get the PG map and peer before starting the backfill. This caused more problems than solved as we had blocked I/O (over 200 seconds) until we set the new OSDs to in. > > Even adding one OSD disk into the cluster is causing these slow I/O messages. We still have 5 more disks to add from this server and four more servers to add. > > In addition to trying to minimize these impacts, would it be better to split the PGs then add the rest of the servers, or add the servers then do the PG split. I'm thinking splitting first would be better, but I'd like to get other opinions. > > No spindle stays at high utilization for long and the await drops below 20 ms usually within 10 seconds so I/O should be serviced "pretty quick". My next guess is that the journals are getting full and blocking while waiting for flushes, but I'm not exactly sure how to identify that. We are using the defaults for the journal except for size (10G). We'd like to have journals large to handle bursts, but if they are getting filled with backfill traffic, it may be counter productive. Can/does backfill/recovery bypass the journal? > > Thanks, > > - ---------------- > Robert LeBlanc > PGP Fingerprint 79A2 9CA4 6CC4 45DD A904 C70E E654 3BB2 FA62 B9F1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: Mailvelope v1.0.2 > Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com > > wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJV8e5qCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAaIwQAMN5DJlhrZkqwqsVXaKB > nnegQjG6Y02ObLRrg96ghHr+AGgY/HRm3iShng6E1N9CL+XjcHSLeb1JqH9n > 2SgGQGoRAU1dY6DIlOs5K8Fwd2bBECh863VymYbO+OLgtXbpp2mWfZZVAkTf > V9ryaEh7tZOY1Mhx7mSIyr9Ur7IxTUOjzExAFPGfTLP1cbjE/FXoQMHh10fe > zSzk/qK0AvajFD0PR04uRyEsGYeCLl68kGQi1R7IQlxZWc7hMhWXKNIFlbKB > lk5+8OGx/LawW7qxpFm8a1SNoiAwMtrPKepvHYGi8u3rfXJa6ZE38jGuoqRs > 8jD+b+gS0yxKbahT6S/gAEbgzAH0JF4YSz+nHNrvS6eSebykE9/7HGe9W7WA > HRAkrESi/f1MKtRkud2Nhycx2R0MZLK/HoumnCN8WUmgvOtKsyYpXj6FXghv > VGpi3r6uyC5Xlb8JGREqB1hAUTHAv0+z4biDBvPYrENwFUaerWiIujIeLWV9 > aYuiQBjjDCLoqWZj0+gQwn9/zXo8gE7jo3XAemYqGB8NJY1e+RZW6+TgC2rD > Floa1en1PzZsynm1Ho+RPWW509kog5fFkt41nJmmxRi3kNWwiJfKLJvysetl > RYudFG1cEumfI68VyNcuL4dMzf9FsiADsBaHue8g9a5bjJH8LjK4fKZDCCJf > Rzgu > =vlrz > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > ________________________________ > > PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies). > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v1.0.2 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wsFcBAEBCAAQBQJV8gEnCRDmVDuy+mK58QAAQ7QQAJjm1tu9Tp8q+TPXS6k/ +MXfpW28p54y67gfBcGHSOJd/VzJsIytFeO9Q5r6uA3U+JFvxVeN8Jpbp8qF JyjAR2qttW5MnOcZm8Zf8VI6RVNfCXw9KIqCtO8ZWN89JKNg0ImXqMKOK5rL wg1wuk+fFF8PvJlweQS9xOFdXgxfnMXlLfXoYccHzRsRyTHIixrVED1vWgAA oLSOYySPaLTjJLfaBIu1M4tb60BLA9Z1rNsHZPLEODGZCCCFEwxjYB+hzDtS BbnShRU89rlzkixW22NzGEbjLBUR9stRMfRGDAd8iHOiisqmrJJkiVK/3ZSX kyj+aXLE0pCS/Z/w+Utyg0B1jc6kwUoAcdE8q1OMYUEUCC39ZQxJhtJLDarF vn/XUCBrDu5f/sVt8z2fjxdQIBvX7fYFN9Quf0gvlXVico+gu3lEBezXzSDX gIAJu6B1RoWL445reDZbdPE5ZaXQP/HkcDhwIL6h0i+1PLjPw6dyR9mJ65OR Byor/5/tfCOuH6nTgBYNa2Ty4FHx0FzlwVLeUktRlameQ/XoLf51ZIncR/XZ rl/lrizRvAm0jMJL11IvMcjnPUZxTBcqJmgk4Zq1w1I62smtZ7gw5C0T/dDv oi5/vpDzgDiASEd8GNA5pYsZZHtZicSXzFGbBdj/FwsIJGneTzbUMN/2M9ND nHow =+qf1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |