Just a quick place to start is osd_max_backfills.  You have this set to 1.
Each PG is on 11 OSDs.  When you have a PG moving, it is on the original 11
OSDs and the new X number of OSDs that it is going to.  For each of your
PGs that is moving, an OSD can only move 1 at a time (your
osd_max_backfills), and each PG is on 11 + X OSDs.

So with your cluster.  I don't see how many OSDs you have, but you have 25
PGs moving around and 8 of them are actively backfilling.  Assuming you
were only changing 1 OSD per backfill operation, that would mean that you
had at least 96 OSDs (11+1 * 8).  That would be a perfect distribution of
OSDs for the PGs backfilling.  Let's say now that you're averaging closer
to 3 OSDs changing per PG and that the remaining 17 PGs waiting to backfill
are blocked by a few OSDs each (because those OSDs are already included in
the 8 active backfilling PGs.  That would indicate that you have closer to
200+ OSDs.

Every time I'm backfilling and want to speed things up, I watch iostat on
some of my OSDs and increase osd_max_backfills until I'm consistently using
about 70% of the disk to allow for customer overhead.  You can always
figure out what's best for your use case though.  Generally I've been ok
running with osd_max_backfills=5 without much problem and bringing that up
some when I know that client IO will be minimal, but again it depends on
your use case and cluster.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:08 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> We have a cluster that's currently backfilling from increasing PG counts.
> We have tuned recovery and backfill way down as a "precaution" and would
> like to start tuning it to bring up to a good balance between that and
> client I/O.
>
> At the moment we're in the process of bumping up PG numbers for pools
> serving production workloads. Said pools are EC 8+3.
>
> It looks like we're having very low numbers of PGs backfilling as in:
>
>             2567 TB used, 5062 TB / 7630 TB avail
>             145588/849529410 objects degraded (0.017%)
>             5177689/849529410 objects misplaced (0.609%)
>                 7309 active+clean
>                   23 active+clean+scrubbing
>                   18 active+clean+scrubbing+deep
>                   13 active+remapped+backfill_wait
>                    5 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
>                    4 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait
>                    3 active+remapped+backfilling
>                    1 active+clean+inconsistent
> recovery io 1966 MB/s, 96 objects/s
>   client io 726 MB/s rd, 147 MB/s wr, 89 op/s rd, 71 op/s wr
>
> Also, the rate of recovery in terms of data and object throughput varies a
> lot, even with the number of PGs backfilling remaining constant.
>
> Here's the config in the OSDs:
>
>     "osd_max_backfills": "1",
>     "osd_min_recovery_priority": "0",
>     "osd_backfill_full_ratio": "0.85",
>     "osd_backfill_retry_interval": "10",
>     "osd_allow_recovery_below_min_size": "true",
>     "osd_recovery_threads": "1",
>     "osd_backfill_scan_min": "16",
>     "osd_backfill_scan_max": "64",
>     "osd_recovery_thread_timeout": "30",
>     "osd_recovery_thread_suicide_timeout": "300",
>     "osd_recovery_sleep": "0",
>     "osd_recovery_delay_start": "0",
>     "osd_recovery_max_active": "5",
>     "osd_recovery_max_single_start": "1",
>     "osd_recovery_max_chunk": "8388608",
>     "osd_recovery_max_omap_entries_per_chunk": "64000",
>     "osd_recovery_forget_lost_objects": "false",
>     "osd_scrub_during_recovery": "false",
>     "osd_kill_backfill_at": "0",
>     "osd_debug_skip_full_check_in_backfill_reservation": "false",
>     "osd_debug_reject_backfill_probability": "0",
>     "osd_recovery_op_priority": "5",
>     "osd_recovery_priority": "5",
>     "osd_recovery_cost": "20971520",
>     "osd_recovery_op_warn_multiple": "16",
>
> What I'm looking for, first of all, is a better understanding of the
> mechanism that schedules the backfilling/recovery work; the end goal is to
> understand how to tune this safely to achieve as close to an optimal
> balance between rate at which recovery and client work is performed.
>
> I'm thinking things like osd_max_backfills,
> osd_backfill_scan_min/osd_backfill_scan_max might be prime candidates for
> tuning.
>
> Any thoughs/insights by the Ceph community will be greatly appreciated,
>
> George
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to