From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: GuangYang Subject: Pool setting for recovery priority Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:48:22 -0700 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from blu004-omc4s25.hotmail.com ([65.55.111.164]:59536 "EHLO BLU004-OMC4S25.hotmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751648AbbIPPsX convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:48:23 -0400 Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "sjust@redhat.com" Cc: "ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org" Hi Sam, As part of the effort to solve problems similar to issue #13104 (http:/= /tracker.ceph.com/issues/13104), do you think it is appropriate to add = some parameters to pool setting: =A0 =A01. recovery priority of the pool - we have a customized pool rec= overy priority (like process's nice value) to favor some pools over oth= ers. For example, the bucket index pool is usually much much smaller bu= t important to recover first (e.g. might affect write latency as like i= ssue #13104). =A0 =A02. pool level recovery op priority - currently we have a low pri= ority for recovery op (by default it is 10 while client io's priority i= s 63), is it possible to have a pool setting to customized the priority= on pool level. The purpose is to give some flexibility in terms of favor some pools ov= er others when doing recovery, in our case using radosgw, we would like= to favor bucket index pool as that is on the write path for all reques= ts. Thanks, Guang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html