Looks like I'm not alone in drop off scrub performance after last update? :)
Łukasz Borek
luk...@borek.org.pl
On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 11:58, Eugen Block <ebl...@nde.ag> wrote:
> Thanks Frédéric.
> The customer found the sticky flag, too. I must admit, I haven't used
> the mute command too often yet, usually I try to get to the bottom of
> a warning and rather fix the underlying issue. :-D
> So the mute clears if the number increases:
>
> >> if (q->second.count > p->second.count)
>
> That makes sense, and I agree that an admin might want to know about
> that. Then this is resolved for me, thanks for the quick response!
>
> Eugen
>
> Zitat von Frédéric Nass <frederic.n...@univ-lorraine.fr>:
>
> > Hi Eugen,
> >
> > Reading the code, the muted alert was cleared because it was
> > non-sticky and the number of affected PGs increased (which was
> > decided to be a good reason to alert the admin).
> >
> > Have you tried to use the --sticky argument on the 'ceph health
> > mute' command?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Frédéric.
> >
> > ----- Le 25 Juin 25, à 9:21, Eugen Block ebl...@nde.ag a écrit :
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm trying to understand the "ceph health mute" behavior. In this
> >> case, I'm referring to the warning PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED. If you mute
> >> it for a week and the cluster continues deep-scrubbing, the "mute"
> >> will clear at some point although there are still PGs not
> >> deep-scrubbed in time warnings. I could verify this in a tiny lab with
> >> 19.2.2, setting osd_deep_scrub_interval to 10 minutes, the warning
> >> pops up. Then I mute that warning, issue deep-scrubs for several
> >> pools, and at some point I see this in the mon log:
> >>
> >> Jun 25 08:53:28 host1 ceph-mon[823315]: log_channel(cluster) log [WRN]
> >> : Health check update: 61 pgs not deep-scrubbed in time
> >> (PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED)
> >> Jun 25 08:53:28 host1 ceph-mon[823315]: Health check update: 61 pgs
> >> not deep-scrubbed in time (PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED)
> >> Jun 25 08:53:29 host1 ceph-mon[823315]: pgmap v164176: 389 pgs: 389
> >> active+clean; 428 MiB data, 57 GiB used, 279 GiB / 336 GiB avail
> >> ...
> >> Jun 25 08:53:31 host1 ceph-mon[823315]: log_channel(cluster) log [INF]
> >> : Health alert mute PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED cleared (count increased from
> >> 60 to 61)
> >> Jun 25 08:53:31 host1 ceph-mon[823315]: Health alert mute
> >> PG_NOT_DEEP_SCRUBBED cleared (count increased from 60 to 61)
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't really understand what the code does [0] (I'm not a dev):
> >>
> >> ---snip---
> >> if (!p->second.sticky) {
> >> auto q = all.checks.find(p->first);
> >> if (q == all.checks.end()) {
> >> mon.clog->info() << "Health alert mute " << p->first
> >> << " cleared (health alert cleared)";
> >> p = pending_mutes.erase(p);
> >> changed = true;
> >> continue;
> >> }
> >> if (p->second.count) {
> >> // count-based mute
> >> if (q->second.count > p->second.count) {
> >> mon.clog->info() << "Health alert mute " << p->first
> >> << " cleared (count increased from " <<
> p->second.count
> >> << " to " << q->second.count << ")";
> >> p = pending_mutes.erase(p);
> >> changed = true;
> >> continue;
> >> ---snip---
> >>
> >> Could anyone shed some light what I'm not understanding? Why would the
> >> mute clear although there are still PGs not deep-scrubbed?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Eugen
> >>
> >> [0]
> >>
> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/d78ffd1247d6cef5cbd829e77204185dc0d3a8ba/src/mon/HealthMonitor.cc#L431
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
>
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
