Re: Removing pool in nautilus is incredibly slow

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I never tried "prio" out, but the reports I have seen claim that prio is inferior.

However, as far as I know it is safe to change these settings. Unfortunately, you need to restart services to apply the changes.

Before you do, check if *all* daemons are using the same setting. Contrary to the naming (osd_*), this setting applies to all daemons. I added it to the global options and, most notably, performance of the MDS was improved a lot.

Best regards,
=================
Frank Schilder
AIT Risø Campus
Bygning 109, rum S14

________________________________________
From: Francois Legrand <fleg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 26 June 2020 15:03:23
To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  Re: Removing pool in nautilus is incredibly slow

I changed osd_op_queue_cut_off to high and rebooted all the osds. But
the result is more or less the same (storage is still extremely slow,
2h30 to rdb extract a 64GB image !). The only improvement is that it
seems that degraded pgs have disapeared (which is at least a good
point). It seems that there is a problem in priority of operations.
Thus do you think (and also others on the list) that changing the
osd_op_queue setting could help (change to prio or mclock_client).
What are the risks or secondary effects of trying mclock_client on a
production cluster (is it safe) ?
F.

Le 26/06/2020 à 09:46, Frank Schilder a écrit :
> I'm using
>
> osd_op_queue = wpq
> osd_op_queue_cut_off = high
>
> and these settings are recommended.
>
> Best regards,
> =================
> Frank Schilder
> AIT Risø Campus
> Bygning 109, rum S14
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Francois Legrand <fleg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 26 June 2020 09:44:00
> To: Frank Schilder; ceph-users@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re:  Re: Removing pool in nautilus is incredibly slow
>
> We are now using osd_op_queue = wpq. Maybe returning to prio should help ?
> What are you using on your mimic custer ?
> F.
>
> Le 25/06/2020 à 19:28, Frank Schilder a écrit :
>> OK, this *does* sound bad. I would consider this a show stopper for upgrade from mimic.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> =================
>> Frank Schilder
>> AIT Risø Campus
>> Bygning 109, rum S14
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Francois Legrand <fleg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 25 June 2020 19:25:14
>> To: ceph-users@xxxxxxx
>> Subject:  Re: Removing pool in nautilus is incredibly slow
>>
>> I also had this kind of symptoms with nautilus.
>> Replacing a failed disk (from cluster ok) generates degraded objects.
>> Also, we have a proxmox cluster accessing vm images stored in our ceph storage with rbd.
>> Each time I had some operation on the ceph cluster like adding or removing a pool, most of our proxmox vms lost contact with their system disk in ceph and crashed (or remount system storage in read-only mode). At first I thought it was a network problem, but now I am sure that it's related to ceph becoming unresponsive during background operations.
>> For now, proxmox cannot even access ceph storage using rbd (it fails with timeout).
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
>> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux