2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
Asynchronous Recovery
|
|
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
Ceph Placement Groups (PGs) maintain a log of write transactions to
|
|
|
|
facilitate speedy recovery of data. During recovery, each of these PG logs
|
|
|
|
is used to determine which content in each OSD is missing or outdated.
|
|
|
|
This obviates the need to scan all RADOS objects.
|
|
|
|
See :ref:`Log Based PG <log-based-pg>` for more details on this process.
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
Prior to the Nautilus release this recovery process was synchronous: it
|
|
|
|
blocked writes to a RADOS object until it was recovered. In contrast,
|
|
|
|
backfill could allow writes to proceed (assuming enough up-to-date replicas
|
|
|
|
were available) by temporarily assigning a different acting set, and
|
|
|
|
backfilling an OSD outside of the acting set. In some circumstances
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
this ends up being significantly better for availability, e.g. if the
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
PG log contains 3000 writes to disjoint objects. When the PG log contains
|
|
|
|
thousands of entries, it could actually be faster (though not as safe) to
|
|
|
|
trade backfill for recovery by deleting and redeploying the containing
|
|
|
|
OSD than to iterate through the PG log. Recovering several megabytes
|
|
|
|
of RADOS object data (or even worse, several megabytes of omap keys,
|
|
|
|
notably RGW bucket indexes) can drastically increase latency for a small
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
update, and combined with requests spread across many degraded objects
|
|
|
|
it is a recipe for slow requests.
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
To avoid this we can perform recovery in the background on an OSD
|
|
|
|
out-of-band of the live acting set, similar to backfill, but still using
|
|
|
|
the PG log to determine what needs to be done. This is known as *asynchronous
|
|
|
|
recovery*.
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
The threashold for performing asynchronous recovery instead of synchronous
|
|
|
|
recovery is not a clear-cut. There are a few criteria which
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
need to be met for asynchronous recovery:
|
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
* Try to keep ``min_size`` replicas available
|
|
|
|
* Use the approximate magnitude of the difference in length of
|
|
|
|
logs combined with historical missing objects to estimate the cost of
|
|
|
|
recovery
|
|
|
|
* Use the parameter ``osd_async_recovery_min_cost`` to determine
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
when asynchronous recovery is appropriate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the existing peering process, when we choose the acting set we
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
have not fetched the PG log from each peer; we have only the bounds of
|
|
|
|
it and other metadata from their ``pg_info_t``. It would be more expensive
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
to fetch and examine every log at this point, so we only consider an
|
2019-05-09 03:19:32 +00:00
|
|
|
approximate check for log length for now. In Nautilus, we improved
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
the accounting of missing objects, so post-Nautilus this information
|
2019-05-09 03:19:32 +00:00
|
|
|
is also used to determine the cost of recovery.
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
While async recovery is occurring, writes to members of the acting set
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
may proceed, but we need to send their log entries to the async
|
2020-10-05 01:52:00 +00:00
|
|
|
recovery targets (just like we do for backfill OSDs) so that they
|
2018-03-26 22:08:12 +00:00
|
|
|
can completely catch up.
|