I think your objective is to move the data without anyone else noticing. What I usually do is reduce the priority of the recovery process as much as possible. Do note this will make the recovery take a looong time, and will also make recovery from failures slow... ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd_recovery_sleep 0.9' ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd-max-backfills 1' ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd-recovery-op-priority 1' ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd-client-op-priority 63' ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd-recovery-max-active 1' ceph tell osd.* injectargs '--osd_recovery_max_chunk 524288'
I would also assume you have set osd_scrub_during_recovery to false. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:19 PM Dan van der Ster <d...@vanderster.com> 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 _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
