On 27/09/18 17:18, Dan van der Ster wrote:
Dear Ceph friends,
I have a CRUSH data migration puzzle and wondered if someone could
think of a clever solution.
Consider an osd tree like this:
-2 4428.02979 room 0513-R-0050
-72 911.81897 rack RA01
-4 917.27899 rack RA05
-6 917.25500 rack RA09
-9 786.23901 rack RA13
-14 895.43903 rack RA17
-65 1161.16003 room 0513-R-0060
-71 578.76001 ipservice S513-A-IP38
-70 287.56000 rack BA09
-80 291.20001 rack BA10
-76 582.40002 ipservice S513-A-IP63
-75 291.20001 rack BA11
-78 291.20001 rack BA12
In the beginning, for reasons that are not important, we created two pools:
* poolA chooses room=0513-R-0050 then replicates 3x across the racks.
* poolB chooses room=0513-R-0060, replicates 2x across the
ipservices, then puts a 3rd replica in room 0513-R-0050.
For clarity, here is the crush rule for poolB:
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take 0513-R-0060
step chooseleaf firstn 2 type ipservice
step emit
step take 0513-R-0050
step chooseleaf firstn -2 type rack
step emit
Now to the puzzle.
For reasons that are not important, we now want to change the rule for
poolB to put all three 3 replicas in room 0513-R-0060.
And we need to do this in a way which is totally non-disruptive
(latency-wise) to the users of either pools. (These are both *very*
active RBD pools).
I see two obvious ways to proceed:
(1) simply change the rule for poolB to put a third replica on any
osd in room 0513-R-0060. I'm afraid though that this would involve way
too many concurrent backfills, cluster-wide, even with
osd_max_backfills=1.
(2) change poolB size to 2, then change the crush rule to that from
(1), then reset poolB size to 3. This would risk data availability
during the time that the pool is size=2, and also risks that every osd
in room 0513-R-0050 would be too busy deleting for some indeterminate
time period (10s of minutes, I expect).
So I would probably exclude those two approaches.
Conceptually what I'd like to be able to do is a gradual migration,
which if I may invent some syntax on the fly...
Instead of
step take 0513-R-0050
do
step weighted-take 99 0513-R-0050 1 0513-R-0060
That is, 99% of the time take room 0513-R-0050 for the 3rd copies, 1%
of the time take room 0513-R-0060.
With a mechanism like that, we could gradually adjust those "step
weighted-take" lines until 100% of the 3rd copies were in 0513-R-0060.
I have a feeling that something equivalent to that is already possible
with weight-sets or some other clever crush trickery.
Any ideas?
Best Regards,
Dan
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
would it be possible in your case to create a parent datacenter bucket
to hold both rooms and assign their relative weights there, then for the
third replica do a step take to this parent bucket ? its not elegant but
may do the trick.
The suggested step weighted-take would be more flexible as it can be
changed on a replica level, but i do not know if you can do this with
existing code.
Maged
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
