Yes, don't know exactly since which release it was introduced, but in latest jewel and beyond there is:
<SNIP> Please use pool level options recovery_priority and recovery_op_priority for enabling pool level recovery priority feature: Raw # ceph osd pool set default.rgw.buckets.index recovery_priority 5 # ceph osd pool set default.rgw.buckets.index recovery_op_priority 5 Recovery value 5 will help because the default is 3 in jewel release, use below command to check if both options are set properly </SNIP r, Sam On 20-06-17 15:48, Logan Kuhn wrote: > Is there a way to prioritize specific pools during recovery? I know > there are issues open for it, but I wasn't aware it was implemented yet... > > Regards, > Logan > > ----- On Jun 20, 2017, at 8:20 AM, Sam Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Are they all in the same pool? Otherwise you could prioritize pool > recovery. > If not, maybe you can play with the osd max backfills number, no > idea if it accepts a value of 0 to actually disable it for > specific OSDs. > > r, > Sam > > On 20-06-17 14:44, Richard Hesketh wrote: > > Is there a way, either by individual PG or by OSD, I can prioritise > backfill/recovery on a set of PGs which are currently particularly important > to me? > > For context, I am replacing disks in a 5-node Jewel cluster, on a > node-by-node basis - mark out the OSDs on a node, wait for them to clear, > replace OSDs, bring up and in, mark out the OSDs on the next set, etc. I've > done my first node, but the significant CRUSH map changes means most of my > data is moving. I only currently care about the PGs on my next set of OSDs to > replace - the other remapped PGs I don't care about settling because they're > only going to end up moving around again after I do the next set of disks. I > do want the PGs specifically on the OSDs I am about to replace to backfill > because I don't want to compromise data integrity by downing them while they > host active PGs. If I could specifically prioritise the backfill on those > PGs/OSDs, I could get on with replacing disks without worrying about causing > degraded PGs. > > I'm in a situation right now where there is merely a couple of dozen > PGs on the disks I want to replace, which are all remapped and waiting to > backfill - but there are 2200 other PGs also waiting to backfill because > they've moved around too, and it's extremely frustating to be sat waiting to > see when the ones I care about will finally be handled so I can get on with > replacing those disks. > > Rich > > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
