From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Max A. Krasilnikov" Subject: Re: un-even data filled on OSDs Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:29:24 +0300 Message-ID: <20160610102924.GE35337@colocall.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ceph-users-bounces-idqoXFIVOFJgJs9I8MT0rw@public.gmane.org Sender: "ceph-users" Cc: ceph-devel , ceph-users List-Id: ceph-devel.vger.kernel.org Hello! On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 07:38:10AM +0530, swamireddy wrote: > Blair - Thanks for the details. I used to set the low priority for > recovery during the rebalance/recovery activity. > Even though I set the recovery_priority as 5 (instead of 1) and > client-op_priority set as 63, some of my customers complained that > their VMs are not reachable for a few mins/secs during the reblancing > task. Not sure, these low priority configurations are doing the job as > its. It is true up to Hammer at least. I have no possibility to test it on jevel setup due to my company policy (part of my cluster already is jevel, but I can not continue upgrade due to direct directive). > Thanks > Swami -- WBR, Max A. Krasilnikov