Hi Sage, I think we can refactor the io priority strategy at the same time based on our consideration below? 2016-12-03 17:21 GMT+08:00 Ning Yao <zay11022@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, all > > Currently, we can modify osd_client_op_priority to assign different > clients' ops with different priority such like we can assign high > priority for OLTP and assign low priority for OLAP. However, there are > some consideration as below: > > 1) it seems OLTP's client op still can be blocked by OLAP's sub_ops > since sub_ops use the CEPH_MSG_PRIO_DEFAULT. So should we consider > sub_op should inherit the message's priority from client Ops (if > client ops do not give priority explicitly, use CEPH_MSG_PRIO_DEFAULT > by default), does this make sense? > > 2) secondly, reply message is assigned with > priority(CEPH_MSG_PRIO_HIGH), but there is no restriction for client > Ops' priority (use can set 210), which will lead to blocked for reply > message. So should we think change those kind of message to highest > priority(CEPH_MSG_PRIO_HIGHEST). Currently, it seems no ops use > CEPH_MSG_PRIO_HIGHEST. > > 3) I think the kick recovery ops should inherit the client ops priority > > 4) Is that possible to add test cases to verify whether it works > properly as expected in ceph-qa-suite as Sam mentioned before? Any > guidelines? Regards Ning Yao 2016-12-03 3:01 GMT+08:00 Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi all, > > We're working on getting infrasture into RADOS to allow for proper > distributed quality-of-service guarantees. The work is based on the > mclock paper published in OSDI'10 > > https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/osdi10/tech/full_papers/Gulati.pdf > > There are a few ways this can be applied: > > - We can use mclock simply as a better way to prioritize background > activity (scrub, snap trimming, recovery, rebalancing) against client IO. > - We can use d-mclock to set QoS parameters (e.g., min IOPS or > proportional priority/weight) on RADOS pools > - We can use d-mclock to set QoS parameters (e.g., min IOPS) for > individual clients. > > Once the rados capabilities are in place, there will be a significant > amount of effort needed to get all of the APIs in place to configure and > set policy. In order to make sure we build somethign that makes sense, > I'd like to collection a set of user stores that we'd like to support so > that we can make sure we capture everything (or at least the important > things). > > Please add any use-cases that are important to you to this pad: > > http://pad.ceph.com/p/qos-user-stories > > or as a follow-up to this email. > > mClock works in terms of a minimum allocation (of IOPS or bandwidth; they > are sort of reduced into a single unit of work), a maximum (i.e. simple > cap), and a proportional weighting (to allocation any additional capacity > after the minimum allocations are satisfied). It's somewhat flexible in > terms of how we apply it to specific clients, classes of clients, or types > of work (e.g., recovery). How we put it all together really depends on > what kinds of things we need to accomplish (e.g., do we need to support a > guaranteed level of service shared across a specific set of N different > clients, or only individual clients?). > > Thanks! > sage > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |