Re: Wide EC pool causes very slow backfill?

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

 



Hi,

what is your current mclock profile? The default is "balanced":

quincy-1:~ # ceph config get osd osd_mclock_profile
balanced

You could try setting it to high_recovery_ops [1], or disable it alltogether [2]:

quincy-1:~ # ceph config set osd osd_op_queue wpq


[1] https://docs.ceph.com/en/quincy/rados/configuration/mclock-config-ref/
[2] https://docs.clyso.com/blog/2023/03/22/ceph-how-do-disable-mclock-scheduler/

Zitat von Torkil Svensgaard <torkil@xxxxxxxx>:

Hi

Our 17.2.7 cluster:

"
-33          886.00842      datacenter 714
 -7          209.93135          host ceph-hdd1
-69           69.86389          host ceph-flash1
 -6          188.09579          host ceph-hdd2
 -3          233.57649          host ceph-hdd3
-12          184.54091          host ceph-hdd4
-34          824.47168      datacenter DCN
-73           69.86389          host ceph-flash2
 -5          252.27127          host ceph-hdd14
 -2          201.78067          host ceph-hdd5
-81          288.26501          host ceph-hdd6
-31          264.56207          host ceph-hdd7
-36         1284.48621      datacenter TBA
-77           69.86389          host ceph-flash3
-21          190.83224          host ceph-hdd8
-29          199.08838          host ceph-hdd9
-11          193.85382          host ceph-hdd10
 -9          237.28154          host ceph-hdd11
-26          187.19536          host ceph-hdd12
 -4          206.37102          host ceph-hdd13
"

We recently created an EC 4+5 pool with failure domain datacenter. The DCN datacenter only had 2 hdd hosts so we added one more to make it possible at all, since each DC needs 3 shards, as I understand it.

Backfill was really slow though, so we just added another host to the DCN datacenter. Backfill looks like this:

"
  data:
    volumes: 1/1 healthy
    pools:   13 pools, 11153 pgs
    objects: 311.53M objects, 1000 TiB
    usage:   1.6 PiB used, 1.6 PiB / 3.2 PiB avail
    pgs:     60/1669775060 objects degraded (0.000%)
             373356926/1669775060 objects misplaced (22.360%)
             5944 active+clean
             5177 active+remapped+backfill_wait
             22   active+remapped+backfilling
             4    active+recovery_wait+degraded+remapped
             3    active+recovery_wait+remapped
             2    active+recovery_wait+degraded
             1    active+recovering+degraded+remapped

  io:
    client:   73 MiB/s rd, 339 MiB/s wr, 1.06k op/s rd, 561 op/s wr
    recovery: 1.2 GiB/s, 313 objects/s
"

Given that the first host added had 19 OSDs, with none of them anywhere near the target capacity, and the one we just added has 22 empty OSDs, having just 22 PGs backfilling and 1 recovering seems somewhat underwhelming.

Is this to be expected with such a pool? Mclock profile is high_recovery_ops.

Mvh.

Torkil

--
Torkil Svensgaard
Sysadmin
MR-Forskningssektionen, afs. 714
DRCMR, Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance
Hvidovre Hospital
Kettegård Allé 30
DK-2650 Hvidovre
Denmark
Tel: +45 386 22828
E-mail: torkil@xxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
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