[ceph-users] Re: Slow recovery and inaccurate recovery figures since Quincy upgrade

2023-10-03 Thread Sridhar Seshasayee
Hello Iain, Does anyone have any ideas of what could be the issue here or anywhere we > can check what is going on?? > > You could be hitting the slow backfill/recovery issue with mclock_scheduler. Could you please provide the output of the following commands? 1. ceph versions 2. ceph config get

[ceph-users] Re: Slow recovery and inaccurate recovery figures since Quincy upgrade

2023-10-03 Thread Iain Stott
Hi Sridhar, Thanks for the response, I have added the output you requested below, I have attached the output from the last command in a file as it was rather long. We did try to set high_recovery_ops but it didn't seem to have any visible effect. root@gb4-li-cephgw-001 ~ # ceph versions { "

[ceph-users] Re: Slow recovery and inaccurate recovery figures since Quincy upgrade

2023-10-03 Thread Sridhar Seshasayee
To help complete the recovery, you can temporarily try disabling scrub and deep scrub operations by running: ceph osd set noscrub ceph osd set nodeep-scrub This should help speed up the recovery process. Once the recovery is done, you can unset the above scrub flags and revert the mClock profile

[ceph-users] Re: Slow recovery and inaccurate recovery figures since Quincy upgrade

2023-10-04 Thread Sake
Hi,Please take a look at the following thread: https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/ceph-users@ceph.io/thread/PWHG6QJ6N2TJEYD2U4AXJAJ23CRPJG4E/#7ZMBM23GXYFIGY52ZWJDY5NUSYSDSYL6In short, the value for "osd_mclock_cost_per_byte_usec_hdd" isn't correct. With the release of 17.2.7 this option will be