Mon disks don't have journals, they're just a folder on a filesystem on a disk.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 6:40 AM M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamire...@gmail.com> wrote: > ceph mons looks fine during the recovery. Using HDD with SSD > journals. with recommeded CPU and RAM numbers. > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > What about the system stats on your mons during recovery? If they are > having a hard time keeping up with requests during a recovery, I could see > that impacting client io. What disks are they running on? CPU? Etc. > > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 6:01 AM M Ranga Swami Reddy <swamire...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Debug setting defaults are using..like 1/5 and 0/5 for almost.. > >> Shall I try with 0 for all debug settings? > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 9:17 PM Darius Kasparavičius <daz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > > >> > Check your CPU usage when you are doing those kind of operations. We > >> > had a similar issue where our CPU monitoring was reporting fine < 40% > >> > usage, but our load on the nodes was high mid 60-80. If it's possible > >> > try disabling ht and see the actual cpu usage. > >> > If you are hitting CPU limits you can try disabling crc on messages. > >> > ms_nocrc > >> > ms_crc_data > >> > ms_crc_header > >> > > >> > And setting all your debug messages to 0. > >> > If you haven't done you can also lower your recovery settings a > little. > >> > osd recovery max active > >> > osd max backfills > >> > > >> > You can also lower your file store threads. > >> > filestore op threads > >> > > >> > > >> > If you can also switch to bluestore from filestore. This will also > >> > lower your CPU usage. I'm not sure that this is bluestore that does > >> > it, but I'm seeing lower cpu usage when moving to bluestore + rocksdb > >> > compared to filestore + leveldb . > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 4:27 PM M Ranga Swami Reddy > >> > <swamire...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Thats expected from Ceph by design. But in our case, we are using > all > >> > > recommendation like rack failure domain, replication n/w,etc, still > >> > > face client IO performance issues during one OSD down.. > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:56 PM David Turner < > drakonst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > With a RACK failure domain, you should be able to have an entire > rack powered down without noticing any major impact on the clients. I > regularly take down OSDs and nodes for maintenance and upgrades without > seeing any problems with client IO. > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:01 AM M Ranga Swami Reddy < > swamire...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Hello - I have a couple of questions on ceph cluster stability, > even > >> > > >> we follow all recommendations as below: > >> > > >> - Having separate replication n/w and data n/w > >> > > >> - RACK is the failure domain > >> > > >> - Using SSDs for journals (1:4ratio) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Q1 - If one OSD down, cluster IO down drastically and customer > Apps impacted. > >> > > >> Q2 - what is stability ratio, like with above, is ceph cluster > >> > > >> workable condition, if one osd down or one node down,etc. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Thanks > >> > > >> Swami > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > > >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
