Hi Manuel, I’ve interleaved responses below.
> On May 8, 2019, at 3:17 PM, EDH - Manuel Rios Fernandez > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Eric, > > Yes we do : > > time s3cmd ls s3://[BUCKET]/ --no-ssl and we get near 2min 30 secs for list > the bucket. > > If we instantly hit again the query it normally timeouts. > > > Could you explain a little more " > > With respect to your earlier message in which you included the output of > `ceph df`, I believe the reason that default.rgw.buckets.index shows as > 0 bytes used is that the index uses the metadata branch of the object to > store its data. > “ Each object stored in ceph is composed of 3 distinct parts — the data, the xattr metadata (older), and the omap metadata (newer). For the system objects that manage RGW on top of ceph we often use the omap metadata. We use this for bucket indexes and for various types of logs, for example. `ceph df` reports only the data’s size and not the two types of metadata sizes. So that would explain why you see 0B for the bucket index objects. > I read in IRC today that in Nautilus release now is well calculated and no > show more 0B. Is it correct? I am having difficulty understanding that sentence. Would you be so kind as to rewrite it? I don’t want to create confusion by guessing. Eric > Thanks for your response. > > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: J. Eric Ivancich <[email protected]> > Enviado el: miércoles, 8 de mayo de 2019 21:00 > Para: EDH - Manuel Rios Fernandez <[email protected]>; 'Casey Bodley' > <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Asunto: Re: [ceph-users] Ceph Bucket strange issues rgw.none + id and marker > diferent. > > Hi Manuel, > > My response is interleaved. > > On 5/7/19 7:32 PM, EDH - Manuel Rios Fernandez wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> This looks like something the software developer must do, not something than >> Storage provider must allow no? > > True -- so you're using `radosgw-admin bucket list --bucket=XYZ` to list the > bucket? Currently we do not allow for a "--allow-unordered" flag, but there's > no reason we could not. I'm working on the PR now, although it might take > some time before it gets to v13. > >> Strange behavior is that sometimes bucket is list fast in less than 30 secs >> and other time it timeout after 600 secs, the bucket contains 875 folders >> with a total object number of 6Millions. >> >> I don’t know how a simple list of 875 folder can timeout after 600 >> secs > > Burkhard Linke's comment is on target. The "folders" are a trick using > delimiters. A bucket is really entirely flat without a hierarchy. > >> We bought several NVMe Optane for do 4 partitions in each PCIe card and get >> up 1.000.000 IOPS for Index. Quite expensive because we calc that our index >> is just 4GB (100-200M objects),waiting those cards. Any more idea? > > With respect to your earlier message in which you included the output of > `ceph df`, I believe the reason that default.rgw.buckets.index shows as > 0 bytes used is that the index uses the metadata branch of the object to > store its data. > >> Regards > > Eric > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
