osd_max_backfills is a setting per osd.  With that set to 1, each osd will
only be involved in a single backfill/recovery at the same time.  However
the cluster as a whole will have as many backfills as it can while each osd
is only involved in 1 each.

On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:58 PM 하현 <hfamil...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ceph experts.
>
> I confused when set limitation of osd max backfills.
> When osd down recovery&backfills occuerred, and osd up is same.
>
> I want to set limitation for backfills to 1.
> So, I set config as below.
>
>
> # ceph --admin-daemon /var/run/ceph/ceph-osd.0.asok config show|egrep
> "osd_max_backfills|osd_recovery_threads|osd_recovery_max_active|osd_recovery_op_priority"
>     "osd_max_backfills": "1",
>     "osd_recovery_threads": "1",
>     "osd_recovery_max_active": "1",
>     "osd_recovery_op_priority": "3",
>
> When osd up it seemed works good but when osd down it seemed not works as
> I thinks.
> Please see the ceph watch logs.
>
> osd down>
> pgmap v898158: 2048 pgs: 20 remapped+peering, 106
> active+undersized+degraded, 1922 active+clean; 641 B/s rd, 253 kB/s wr, 36
> op/s; 45807/1807242 objects degraded (2.535%)
> pgmap v898159: 2048 pgs: *5
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling*, 9
> activating+undersized+degraded+remapped, 24
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+wait_backfill, 20 remapped+peering, 68
> active+undersized+degraded, 1922 active+clean; 510 B/s rd, 498 kB/s wr, 42
> op/s; 41619/1812733 objects degraded (2.296%); 21029/1812733 objects
> misplaced (1.160%); 149 MB/s, 37 objects/s recovering
> pgmap v898168: 2048 pgs: *16
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling*, 110
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+wait_backfill, 1922 active+clean; 508
> B/s rd, 562 kB/s wr, 61 op/s; 54118/1823939 objects degraded (2.967%);
> 86984/1823939 objects misplaced (4.769%); 4025 MB/s, 1006 objects/s
> recovering
> pgmap v898192: 2048 pgs: 3 peering, 1 activating, 13
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, 106
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+wait_backfill, 1925 active+clean; 10184
> B/s rd, 362 kB/s wr, 47 op/s; 49724/1823312 objects degraded (2.727%);
> 79709/1823312 objects misplaced (4.372%); 1949 MB/s, 487 objects/s
> recovering
> pgmap v898216: 2048 pgs: 1 active+undersized+remapped, 11
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, 98
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+wait_backfill, 1938 active+clean; 10164
> B/s rd, 251 kB/s wr, 37 op/s; 44429/1823312 objects degraded (2.437%);
> 74037/1823312 objects misplaced (4.061%); 2751 MB/s, 687 objects/s
> recovering
> pgmap v898541: 2048 pgs: 1
> active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling, 2047 active+clean; 218
> kB/s wr, 39 op/s; 261/1806097 objects degraded (0.014%); 543/1806097
> objects misplaced (0.030%); 677 MB/s, 9 keys/s, 176 objects/s recovering
>
> osd up>
> pgmap v899274: 2048 pgs: 2 activating, 14 peering, 12 remapped+peering,
> 2020 active+clean; 5594 B/s rd, 452 kB/s wr, 54 op/s
> pgmap v899277: 2048 pgs: *1 active+remapped+backfilling*, 41
> active+remapped+wait_backfill, 2 activating, 14 peering, 1990 active+clean;
> 595 kB/s wr, 23 op/s; 36111/1823939 objects misplaced (1.980%); 380 MB/s,
> 95 objects/s recovering
> pgmap v899298: 2048 pgs: 1 peering, *1 active+remapped+backfilling*, 40
> active+remapped+wait_backfill, 2006 active+clean; 723 kB/s wr, 13 op/s;
> 34903/1823294 objects misplaced (1.914%); 1113 MB/s, 278 objects/s
> recovering
> pgmap v899342: 2048 pgs: 1 active+remapped+backfilling, 39
> active+remapped+wait_backfill, 2008 active+clean; 5615 B/s rd, 291 kB/s wr,
> 41 op/s; 33150/1822666 objects misplaced (1.819%)
> pgmap v899274: 2048 pgs: 2 activating, 14 peering, 12 remapped+peering,
> 2020 active+clean;5594 B/s rd, 452 kB/s wr, 54 op/s
> pgmap v899796: 2048 pgs: 1 activating, 1 active+remapped+backfilling, 10
> active+remapped+wait_backfill, 2036 active+clean; 235 kB/s wr, 22 op/s;
> 6423/1809085 objects misplaced (0.355%)
>
> in osd down> logs,  we can see 16 backfills, and in osd up> logs, we can
> see only one backfills. Is that correct? If not, what config should I set ?
> Thank you in advance.
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

Reply via email to