On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Dan Van Der Ster <daniel.vanders...@cern.ch> wrote: > Hi Greg, > We're also due for a similar splitting exercise in the not too distant > future, and will also need to minimize the impact on latency. > > In addition to increasing pg_num in small steps and using a minimal > max_backfills/recoveries configuration, I was planning to increase pgp_num > very slowly as well. In fact, I don't mind if the whole splitting exercise > takes weeks to complete. Do you think that'd work, or are intermediate > values for pgp_num somehow counterproductive?
Yeah, it should work fine. Depending on how much you're increasing the values by, it might move some of the data more than once, but that's the only counterproductive impact of it. -Greg Software Engineer #42 @ http://inktank.com | http://ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
