This is strange indeed.. 1) I recommend to first make sure/validate that all active backfilling as well as in the backfill_wait are indeed/mainly from pool 11 ceph pg ls backfilling ceph pg ls backfill_wait This is to find out if some other pools are causing this slow backfill actiivity. Specially you have 3 EC pools with size 9, the high size tend to have low active backfill counts (and scrub counts). Notice that the number of backfill_wait is larger than 8192, so something else is involved. 2) As recommended by earlier post, i would increase osd_max_backfills to 3 or more. As noted above EC with larger k+m size will benefit from this. I understand you have concerns on stressing the drives, so first increase the osd_recovery_sleep to 1 (a high value) to offset the larger backfills, and it is better to monitor with iostat -dxt 5 to make sure the disk %util/busy is not too high (above 80%) then you can adjust the above 2 values while monitoring iostat. 3) One strange thing is that the pool in question, pgp_num already reached 16384, typically when you set pg_num to 16384, internally Ceph will increase pgp_num in steps that does not exceed cause target_max_misplaced_ratio (same value used by balancer) at a time, so pgp_num will lag pgp_num for some time. Even if you increased this from 0.05 to 0.3 (which is not recommended), unless maybe you do have a large number of objects stored in the other pools ( ceph df will show this), but in such case then maybe pool 11 is not the only significant pool, and maybe one of your EC 9 (6+3?) has a lot of data and small number of pgs ( 32 ?) so you have very large pgs that can have dominant effect on backfill as per point 1). again it is quite strange. /maged On 30/04/2025 00:54, Torkil Svensgaard wrote:
On 29-04-2025 22:52, Anthony D'Atri wrote:
In order to get our PG sizes better aligned we doubled the number of PGs on the pool with the largest PG size. The pool is HDD with DB/WAL on SATA SSD and HDD sizes between 2TB and 20TB and PG size was ~140GB before the doubling.
Please send `ceph osd dump | grep pool`
[root@lazy ~]# ceph osd dump | grep pool pool 4 'rbd' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 4 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1024 pgp_num 1024 autoscale_mode off last_change 2816850 lfor 0/1844098/2447930 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps,bulk stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 3.97 pool 5 'libvirt' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 256 pgp_num 256 autoscale_mode off last_change 2824108 lfor 0/434267/1506461 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 6.07 pool 6 'rbd_internal' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 4 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 2048 pgp_num 2048 autoscale_mode off last_change 2816850 lfor 0/1370796/2806939 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps,bulk stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 2.78 pool 8 '.mgr' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 1 pgp_num 1 autoscale_mode warn last_change 1667576 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 pg_num_min 1 application mgr,mgr_devicehealth read_balance_score 40.00 pool 10 'rbd_ec' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode warn last_change 1919209 lfor 0/1180414/1180412 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 8.16 pool 11 'rbd_ec_data' erasure profile DRCMR_k4m2 size 6 min_size 5 crush_rule 0 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 16384 pgp_num 16384 autoscale_mode off last_change 2832704 lfor 0/1291190/2832700 flags hashpspool,ec_overwrites,selfmanaged_snaps,bulk stripe_width 16384 fast_read 1 compression_algorithm snappy compression_mode aggressive application rbd pool 23 'rbd.nvme' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 5 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 2048 pgp_num 2048 autoscale_mode off last_change 2722280 lfor 0/0/2139786 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps,bulk stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 1.35 pool 25 '.nfs' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode warn last_change 2177402 lfor 0/0/2065595 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 application nfs read_balance_score 8.16 pool 31 'cephfs.cephfs.meta' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 128 pgp_num 128 autoscale_mode off last_change 2478849 lfor 0/0/2198357 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 pg_autoscale_bias 4 pg_num_min 16 recovery_priority 5 application cephfs read_balance_score 6.94 pool 32 'cephfs.cephfs.data' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 autoscale_mode off last_change 2178931 lfor 0/2178574/2178572 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 application cephfs read_balance_score 6.07 pool 34 'cephfs.nvme.data' replicated size 2 min_size 1 crush_rule 5 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode off last_change 2722280 lfor 0/2147353/2147351 flags hashpspool,bulk stripe_width 0 compression_algorithm zstd compression_mode aggressive application cephfs read_balance_score 3.77 pool 35 'cephfs.ssd.data' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode off last_change 2198980 lfor 0/0/2126134 flags hashpspool,bulk stripe_width 0 compression_algorithm zstd compression_mode aggressive application cephfs read_balance_score 8.05 pool 37 'cephfs.hdd.data' erasure profile DRCMR_k4m5_datacenter_hdd size 9 min_size 5 crush_rule 7 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 2048 pgp_num 2048 autoscale_mode off last_change 2816850 lfor 0/0/2139486 flags hashpspool,ec_overwrites,bulk stripe_width 16384 fast_read 1 compression_algorithm zstd compression_mode aggressive application cephfs pool 39 'rbd.ssd' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 64 pgp_num 64 autoscale_mode warn last_change 2541795 flags hashpspool,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 7.52 pool 43 'rbd.ssd.ec' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 3 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode warn last_change 2542174 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 compression_mode aggressive application rbd read_balance_score 8.16 pool 44 'rbd.ssd.ec.data' erasure profile DRCMR_k4m5_datacenter_ssd size 9 min_size 5 crush_rule 6 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode warn last_change 2542179 flags hashpspool,ec_overwrites,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 16384 compression_mode aggressive application rbd pool 47 'rbd.nvmebulk.ec' replicated size 3 min_size 2 crush_rule 10 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 32 pgp_num 32 autoscale_mode warn last_change 2737621 flags hashpspool stripe_width 0 application rbd read_balance_score 3.67 pool 48 'rbd.nvmebulk.data' erasure profile DRCMR_k4m5_datacenter_nvmebulk size 9 min_size 5 crush_rule 11 object_hash rjenkins pg_num 512 pgp_num 512 autoscale_mode off last_change 2737621 lfor 0/0/2736420 flags hashpspool,ec_overwrites,selfmanaged_snaps stripe_width 16384 compression_algorithm snappy compression_mode aggressive application rbd
Pool 11 is the one in question.
osd: 576 osds: 576 up (since 2h), 576 in (since 3d); 8767 remapped pgs
pools: 18 pools, 25249 pgs objects: 683.85M objects, 1.6 PiB usage: 2.7 PiB used, 1.9 PiB / 4.5 PiB avail pgs: 842769842/3951610673 objects misplaced (21.327%) 16481 active+clean 8762 active+remapped+backfill_wait 6 active+remapped+backfilling
Are you *sure* that you have both the mclock override enabled and the op scheduler set to wpq at the proper scope?
Reasonably sure:
[root@ceph-flash1 ~]# ceph config dump | grep wpq osd advanced osd_op_queue wpq *
[root@ceph-flash1 ~]# ceph config dump | grep osd_mclock_override_recovery_settings osd advanced osd_mclock_override_recovery_settings true osd.234 advanced osd_mclock_override_recovery_settings true
Note that if you’re using a wide EC profile that will gridlock the process to an extent.
io: client: 374 MiB/s rd, 14 MiB/s wr, 2.86k op/s rd, 410 op/s wr recovery: 153 MiB/s, 38 objects/s "
The balancer was running and seemingly making very small changes:
" [root@lazy ~]# ceph balancer status { "active": true, "last_optimize_duration": "0:00:01.012679", "last_optimize_started": "Mon Apr 28 10:01:24 2025", "mode": "upmap", "no_optimization_needed": true, "optimize_result": "Optimization plan created successfully", "plans": [] } "
The balancer has a misplaced % above which it won’t make additional changes, that defaults I think to 5%. With 21% misplaced the balancer will be on hold.
I increased target_max_misplaced_ratio to ensure the balancer could work out all the moves:
[root@ceph-flash1 ~]# ceph config dump | grep misplaced mgr basic target_max_misplaced_ratio 0.300000
This is going to take a while, any tips on how to escape the apparent bottleneck?
Try raising
osd_recovery_max_active osd_recovery_max_single_start osd_max_backfills
to 2 or even 3. I have no empirical evidence but I’ve observed that when changing back to wpq that somewhat higher than customary values for these may be needed to be effective. Restarting the OSDs one failure domain at a time, waiting for recovery, might help according to some references.
I am reluctant to increase osd_max_backfills or osd_recovery_max_active because of the small disks in the cluster and the large PG size. We've historically hit problems with concurrent backfills making disks go backfill_full or even full and then it is suddenly a different problem. Some of the smaller drives are at ~75% utilization currently while larger drives are at ~56%, which is one of the things we hope to improve upon by increasing the pg_num.
I'll look at osd_recovery_max_single_start.
Is having many PGs misplaced actually counter productive
Not so much unless you’re severely low on RAM I think, but I would suggest upmap-remapped to vanish the misplaced PGs and let the balancer do it incrementally. If you have 21% misplaced pgremapper may not have worked as expected - I have never used it, but upmap-remapped has worked well for me, usually needing 2-3 successive runs.
The 21% was right after doubling the pg_num. I then ran pgremapper and got misplaced to less than 1% and then the balancer is slowly increasing the number again. I think those tools are largely doing the same thing? I'll try doing it again.
Thanks.
Mvh.
Torkil
I was thinking it was better to let the balancer balance all it could, as that would make all the moves available and decrease the risk of bottlenecking.
Wise choice.
Thanks.
Mvh.
Torkil
-- Torkil Svensgaard Sysadmin MR-Forskningssektionen, afs. 714 DRCMR, Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance Hvidovre Hospital Kettegård Allé 30 DK-2650 Hvidovre Denmark Tel: +45 386 22828 E-mail: torkil@drcmr.dk _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io