The ‘good perf’ that I reported below was the result of beginning 5 new
bluestore conversions which results in a leading edge of ‘good’ performance,
before trickling off.
This performance lasted about 20 minutes, where it backfilled a small set of
PGs off of non-bluestore OSDs.
Current performance is now hovering around:
> pool objects-ssd id 20
> recovery io 14285 kB/s, 202 objects/s
>
> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
> recovery io 0 B/s, 262 keys/s, 12 objects/s
> client io 412 kB/s rd, 67593 B/s wr, 5 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
> What are you referencing when you talk about recovery ops per second?
These are recovery ops as reported by ceph -s or via stats exported via influx
plugin in mgr, and via local collectd collection.
> Also, what are the values for osd_recovery_sleep_hdd and
> osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid, and can you validate via "ceph osd metadata" that
> your BlueStore SSD OSDs are correctly reporting both themselves and their
> journals as non-rotational?
This yields more interesting results.
Pasting results for 3 sets of OSDs in this order
{0}hdd+nvme block.db
{24}ssd+nvme block.db
{59}ssd+nvme journal
> ceph osd metadata | grep 'id\|rotational'
> "id": 0,
> "bluefs_db_rotational": "0",
> "bluefs_slow_rotational": "1",
> "bluestore_bdev_rotational": "1",
> "journal_rotational": "1",
> "rotational": “1"
> "id": 24,
> "bluefs_db_rotational": "0",
> "bluefs_slow_rotational": "0",
> "bluestore_bdev_rotational": "0",
> "journal_rotational": "1",
> "rotational": “0"
> "id": 59,
> "journal_rotational": "0",
> "rotational": “0"
I wonder if it matters/is correct to see "journal_rotational": “1” for the
bluestore OSD’s {0,24} with nvme block.db.
Hope this may be helpful in determining the root cause.
If it helps, all of the OSD’s were originally deployed with ceph-deploy, but
are now being redone with ceph-volume locally on each host.
Thanks,
Reed
> On Feb 26, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:12 AM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com
> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> wrote:
> After my last round of backfills completed, I started 5 more bluestore
> conversions, which helped me recognize a very specific pattern of performance.
>
>> pool objects-ssd id 20
>> recovery io 757 MB/s, 10845 objects/s
>>
>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>> recovery io 0 B/s, 36265 keys/s, 1633 objects/s
>> client io 2544 kB/s rd, 36788 B/s wr, 1 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>
> The “non-throttled” backfills are only coming from filestore SSD OSD’s.
> When backfilling from bluestore SSD OSD’s, they appear to be throttled at the
> aforementioned <20 ops per OSD.
>
> Wait, is that the current state? What are you referencing when you talk about
> recovery ops per second?
>
> Also, what are the values for osd_recovery_sleep_hdd and
> osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid, and can you validate via "ceph osd metadata" that
> your BlueStore SSD OSDs are correctly reporting both themselves and their
> journals as non-rotational?
> -Greg
>
>
> This would corroborate why the first batch of SSD’s I migrated to bluestore
> were all at “full” speed, as all of the OSD’s they were backfilling from were
> filestore based, compared to increasingly bluestore backfill targets, leading
> to increasingly long backfill times as I move from one host to the next.
>
> Looking at the recovery settings, the recovery_sleep and recovery_sleep_ssd
> values across bluestore or filestore OSDs are showing as 0 values, which
> means no sleep/throttle if I am reading everything correctly.
>
>> sudo ceph daemon osd.73 config show | grep recovery
>> "osd_allow_recovery_below_min_size": "true",
>> "osd_debug_skip_full_check_in_recovery": "false",
>> "osd_force_recovery_pg_log_entries_factor": "1.300000",
>> "osd_min_recovery_priority": "0",
>> "osd_recovery_cost": "20971520",
>> "osd_recovery_delay_start": "0.000000",
>> "osd_recovery_forget_lost_objects": "false",
>> "osd_recovery_max_active": "35",
>> "osd_recovery_max_chunk": "8388608",
>> "osd_recovery_max_omap_entries_per_chunk": "64000",
>> "osd_recovery_max_single_start": "1",
>> "osd_recovery_op_priority": "3",
>> "osd_recovery_op_warn_multiple": "16",
>> "osd_recovery_priority": "5",
>> "osd_recovery_retry_interval": "30.000000",
>> "osd_recovery_sleep": "0.000000",
>> "osd_recovery_sleep_hdd": "0.100000",
>> "osd_recovery_sleep_hybrid": "0.025000",
>> "osd_recovery_sleep_ssd": "0.000000",
>> "osd_recovery_thread_suicide_timeout": "300",
>> "osd_recovery_thread_timeout": "30",
>> "osd_scrub_during_recovery": "false",
>
>
> As far as I know, the device class is configured correctly as far as I know,
> it all shows as ssd/hdd correctly in ceph osd tree.
>
> So hopefully this may be enough of a smoking gun to help narrow down where
> this may be stemming from.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reed
>
>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 10:04 AM, David Turner <drakonst...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:drakonst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a [1] link to a ML thread tracking some slow backfilling on
>> bluestore. It came down to the backfill sleep setting for them. Maybe it
>> will help.
>>
>> [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg40256.html
>> <https://www.mail-archive.com/ceph-users@lists.ceph.com/msg40256.html>
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 10:46 AM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com
>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> wrote:
>> Probably unrelated, but I do keep seeing this odd negative objects degraded
>> message on the fs-metadata pool:
>>
>>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>>> -34/3 objects degraded (-1133.333%)
>>> recovery io 0 B/s, 89 keys/s, 2 objects/s
>>> client io 51289 B/s rd, 101 kB/s wr, 0 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>
>> Don’t mean to clutter the ML/thread, however it did seem odd, maybe its a
>> culprit? Maybe its some weird sampling interval issue thats been solved in
>> 12.2.3?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Reed
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com
>>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Below is ceph -s
>>>
>>>> cluster:
>>>> id: {id}
>>>> health: HEALTH_WARN
>>>> noout flag(s) set
>>>> 260610/1068004947 objects misplaced (0.024%)
>>>> Degraded data redundancy: 23157232/1068004947 objects degraded
>>>> (2.168%), 332 pgs unclean, 328 pgs degraded, 328 pgs undersized
>>>>
>>>> services:
>>>> mon: 3 daemons, quorum mon02,mon01,mon03
>>>> mgr: mon03(active), standbys: mon02
>>>> mds: cephfs-1/1/1 up {0=mon03=up:active}, 1 up:standby
>>>> osd: 74 osds: 74 up, 74 in; 332 remapped pgs
>>>> flags noout
>>>>
>>>> data:
>>>> pools: 5 pools, 5316 pgs
>>>> objects: 339M objects, 46627 GB
>>>> usage: 154 TB used, 108 TB / 262 TB avail
>>>> pgs: 23157232/1068004947 objects degraded (2.168%)
>>>> 260610/1068004947 objects misplaced (0.024%)
>>>> 4984 active+clean
>>>> 183 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfilling
>>>> 145 active+undersized+degraded+remapped+backfill_wait
>>>> 3 active+remapped+backfill_wait
>>>> 1 active+remapped+backfilling
>>>>
>>>> io:
>>>> client: 8428 kB/s rd, 47905 B/s wr, 130 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>> recovery: 37057 kB/s, 50 keys/s, 217 objects/s
>>>
>>> Also the two pools on the SSDs, are the objects pool at 4096 PG, and the
>>> fs-metadata pool at 32 PG.
>>>
>>>> Are you sure the recovery is actually going slower, or are the individual
>>>> ops larger or more expensive?
>>>
>>> The objects should not vary wildly in size.
>>> Even if they were differing in size, the SSDs are roughly idle in their
>>> current state of backfilling when examining wait in iotop, or atop, or
>>> sysstat/iostat.
>>>
>>> This compares to when I was fully saturating the SATA backplane with over
>>> 1000MB/s of writes to multiple disks when the backfills were going “full
>>> speed.”
>>>
>>> Here is a breakdown of recovery io by pool:
>>>
>>>> pool objects-ssd id 20
>>>> recovery io 6779 kB/s, 92 objects/s
>>>> client io 3071 kB/s rd, 50 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>> pool fs-metadata-ssd id 16
>>>> recovery io 0 B/s, 28 keys/s, 2 objects/s
>>>> client io 109 kB/s rd, 67455 B/s wr, 1 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>>
>>>> pool cephfs-hdd id 17
>>>> recovery io 40542 kB/s, 158 objects/s
>>>> client io 10056 kB/s rd, 142 op/s rd, 0 op/s wr
>>>
>>> So the 24 HDD’s are outperforming the 50 SSD’s for recovery and client
>>> traffic at the moment, which seems conspicuous to me.
>>>
>>> Most of the OSD’s with recovery ops to the SSDs are reporting 8-12 ops,
>>> with one OSD occasionally spiking up to 300-500 for a few minutes. Stats
>>> being pulled by both local CollectD instances on each node, as well as the
>>> Influx plugin in MGR as we evaluate that against collectd.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Reed
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 6:21 PM, Gregory Farnum <gfar...@redhat.com
>>>> <mailto:gfar...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's the output of "ceph -s" while this is happening?
>>>>
>>>> Is there some identifiable difference between these two states, like you
>>>> get a lot of throughput on the data pools but then metadata recovery is
>>>> slower?
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure the recovery is actually going slower, or are the individual
>>>> ops larger or more expensive?
>>>>
>>>> My WAG is that recovering the metadata pool, composed mostly of
>>>> directories stored in omap objects, is going much slower for some reason.
>>>> You can adjust the cost of those individual ops some by changing
>>>> osd_recovery_max_omap_entries_per_chunk (default: 8096), but I'm not sure
>>>> which way you want to go or indeed if this has anything to do with the
>>>> problem you're seeing. (eg, it could be that reading out the omaps is
>>>> expensive, so you can get higher recovery op numbers by turning down the
>>>> number of entries per request, but not actually see faster backfilling
>>>> because you have to issue more requests.)
>>>> -Greg
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:57 PM Reed Dier <reed.d...@focusvq.com
>>>> <mailto:reed.d...@focusvq.com>> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I am running into an odd situation that I cannot easily explain.
>>>> I am currently in the midst of destroy and rebuild of OSDs from filestore
>>>> to bluestore.
>>>> With my HDDs, I am seeing expected behavior, but with my SSDs I am seeing
>>>> unexpected behavior. The HDDs and SSDs are set in crush accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> My path to replacing the OSDs is to set the noout, norecover, norebalance
>>>> flag, destroy the OSD, create the OSD back, (iterate n times, all within a
>>>> single failure domain), unset the flags, and let it go. It finishes,
>>>> rinse, repeat.
>>>>
>>>> For the SSD OSDs, they are SATA SSDs (Samsung SM863a) , 10 to a node, with
>>>> 2 NVMe drives (Intel P3700), 5 SATA SSDs to 1 NVMe drive, 16G partitions
>>>> for block.db (previously filestore journals).
>>>> 2x10GbE networking between the nodes. SATA backplane caps out at around 10
>>>> Gb/s as its 2x 6 Gb/s controllers. Luminous 12.2.2.
>>>>
>>>> When the flags are unset, recovery starts and I see a very large rush of
>>>> traffic, however, after the first machine completed, the performance
>>>> tapered off at a rapid pace and trickles. Comparatively, I’m getting
>>>> 100-200 recovery ops on 3 HDDs, backfilling from 21 other HDDs, where as
>>>> I’m getting 150-250 recovery ops on 5 SSDs, backfilling from 40 other
>>>> SSDs. Every once in a while I will see a spike up to 500, 1000, or even
>>>> 2000 ops on the SSDs, often a few hundred recovery ops from one OSD, and
>>>> 8-15 ops from the others that are backfilling.
>>>>
>>>> This is a far cry from the more than 15-30k recovery ops that it started
>>>> off recovering with 1-3k recovery ops from a single OSD to the backfilling
>>>> OSD(s). And an even farther cry from the >15k recovery ops I was
>>>> sustaining for over an hour or more before. I was able to rebuild a 1.9T
>>>> SSD (1.1T used) in a little under an hour, and I could do about 5 at a
>>>> time and still keep it at roughly an hour to backfill all of them, but
>>>> then I hit a roadblock after the first machine, when I tried to do 10 at a
>>>> time (single machine). I am now still experiencing the same thing on the
>>>> third node, while doing 5 OSDs at a time.
>>>>
>>>> The pools associated with these SSDs are cephfs-metadata, as well as a
>>>> pure rados object pool we use for our own internal applications. Both are
>>>> size=3, min_size=2.
>>>>
>>>> It appears I am not the first to run into this, but it looks like there
>>>> was no resolution: https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg41493.html
>>>> <https://www.spinics.net/lists/ceph-users/msg41493.html>
>>>>
>>>> Recovery parameters for the OSDs match what was in the previous thread,
>>>> sans the osd conf block listed. And current osd_max_backfills = 30 and
>>>> osd_recovery_max_active = 35. Very little activity on the OSDs during this
>>>> period, so should not be any contention for iops on the SSDs.
>>>>
>>>> The only oddity that I can attribute to things is that we had a few
>>>> periods of time where the disk load on one of the mons was high enough to
>>>> cause the mon to drop out of quorum for a brief amount of time, a few
>>>> times. But I wouldn’t think backfills would just get throttled due to mons
>>>> flapping.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully someone has some experience or can steer me in a path to improve
>>>> the performance of the backfills so that I’m not stuck in backfill
>>>> purgatory longer than I need to be.
>>>>
>>>> Linking an imgur album with some screen grabs of the recovery ops over
>>>> time for the first machine, versus the second and third machines to
>>>> demonstrate the delta between them.
>>>> https://imgur.com/a/OJw4b <https://imgur.com/a/OJw4b>
>>>>
>>>> Also including a ceph osd df of the SSDs, highlighted in red are the OSDs
>>>> currently backfilling. Could this possibly be PG overdose? I don’t ever
>>>> run into ‘stuck activating’ PGs, its just painfully slow backfills, like
>>>> they are being throttled by ceph, that are causing me to worry. Drives
>>>> aren’t worn, <30 P/E cycles on the drives, so plenty of life left in them.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Reed
>>>>
>>>>> $ ceph osd df
>>>>> ID CLASS WEIGHT REWEIGHT SIZE USE AVAIL %USE VAR PGS
>>>>> 24 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1094G 708G 60.69 1.08 260
>>>>> 25 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1136G 667G 63.01 1.12 271
>>>>> 26 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1018G 785G 56.46 1.01 243
>>>>> 27 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1065G 737G 59.10 1.05 253
>>>>> 28 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1026G 776G 56.94 1.02 245
>>>>> 29 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1132G 671G 62.79 1.12 270
>>>>> 30 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 944G 859G 52.35 0.93 224
>>>>> 31 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1061G 742G 58.85 1.05 252
>>>>> 32 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1003G 799G 55.67 0.99 239
>>>>> 33 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1049G 753G 58.20 1.04 250
>>>>> 34 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1086G 717G 60.23 1.07 257
>>>>> 35 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 978G 824G 54.26 0.97 232
>>>>> 36 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1057G 745G 58.64 1.05 252
>>>>> 37 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1025G 777G 56.88 1.01 244
>>>>> 38 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1047G 756G 58.06 1.04 250
>>>>> 39 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1031G 771G 57.20 1.02 246
>>>>> 40 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1029G 774G 57.07 1.02 245
>>>>> 41 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1033G 770G 57.28 1.02 245
>>>>> 42 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 993G 809G 55.10 0.98 236
>>>>> 43 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1072G 731G 59.45 1.06 256
>>>>> 44 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1039G 763G 57.64 1.03 248
>>>>> 45 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 992G 810G 55.06 0.98 236
>>>>> 46 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1068G 735G 59.23 1.06 254
>>>>> 47 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 1020G 783G 56.57 1.01 242
>>>>> 48 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 945G 857G 52.44 0.94 225
>>>>> 49 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 649G 1154G 36.01 0.64 139
>>>>> 50 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 426G 1377G 23.64 0.42 83
>>>>> 51 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 610G 1193G 33.84 0.60 131
>>>>> 52 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 558G 1244G 30.98 0.55 118
>>>>> 53 ssd 1.76109 1.00000 1803G 731G 1072G 40.54 0.72 161
>>>>> 54 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 859G 928G 48.06 0.86 229
>>>>> 55 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 942G 844G 52.74 0.94 252
>>>>> 56 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 928G 859G 51.94 0.93 246
>>>>> 57 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1039G 748G 58.15 1.04 277
>>>>> 58 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 963G 824G 53.87 0.96 255
>>>>> 59 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 909G 877G 50.89 0.91 241
>>>>> 60 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1039G 748G 58.15 1.04 277
>>>>> 61 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 892G 895G 49.91 0.89 238
>>>>> 62 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 927G 859G 51.90 0.93 245
>>>>> 63 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 864G 922G 48.39 0.86 229
>>>>> 64 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 968G 819G 54.16 0.97 257
>>>>> 65 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 892G 894G 49.93 0.89 237
>>>>> 66 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 951G 836G 53.23 0.95 252
>>>>> 67 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 878G 908G 49.16 0.88 232
>>>>> 68 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 899G 888G 50.29 0.90 238
>>>>> 69 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 948G 839G 53.04 0.95 252
>>>>> 70 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 914G 873G 51.15 0.91 246
>>>>> 71 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 1004G 782G 56.21 1.00 266
>>>>> 72 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 812G 974G 45.47 0.81 216
>>>>> 73 ssd 1.74599 1.00000 1787G 932G 855G 52.15 0.93 247
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ceph-users mailing list
>>>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>>>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>>> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>> <http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@lists.ceph.com <mailto:ceph-users@lists.ceph.com>
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-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
