Hi Yehuda, First run:
/opt/ceph/bin/radosgw-admin --pool=.rgw.buckets --job-id=testing ERROR: failed to open log pool ret=-2 job not found Do I have to precreate some pool? On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been working on a new tool that would detect leaked rados objects. It > will take some time for it to be merged into an official release, or even > into the master branch, but if anyone likes to play with it, it is in the > wip-rgw-orphans branch. > > At the moment I recommend to not remove any object that the tool reports, but > rather move it to a different pool for backup (using the rados tool cp > command). > > The tool works in a few stages: > (1) list all the rados objects in the specified pool, store in repository > (2) list all bucket instances in the system, store in repository > (3) iterate through bucket instances in repository, list (logical) objects, > for each object store the expected rados objects that build it > (4) compare data from (1) and (3), each object that is in (1), but not in > (3), stat, if older than $start_time - $stale_period, report it > > There can be lot's of things that can go wrong with this, so we really need > to be careful here. > > The tool can be run by the following command: > > $ radosgw-admin orphans find --pool=<data pool> --job-id=<name> > [--num-shards=<num shards>] [--orphan-stale-secs=<seconds>] > > The tool can be stopped, and restarted, and it will continue from the stage > where it stopped. Note that some of the stages will restart from the > beginning (of the stages), due to system limitation (specifically 1, 2). > > In order to clean up a job's data: > > $ radosgw-admin orphans finish --job-id=<name> > > Note that the jobs run in the radosgw-admin process context, it does not > schedule a job on the radosgw process. > > Please let me know of any issue you find. > > Thanks, > Yehuda > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ben Hines" <[email protected]> >> To: "Ben" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" <[email protected]>, "ceph-users" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 3:00:16 PM >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Shadow Files >> >> Going to hold off on our 94.1 update for this issue >> >> Hopefully this can make it into a 94.2 or a v95 git release. >> >> -Ben >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Ben < [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> How long are you thinking here? >> >> We added more storage to our cluster to overcome these issues, and we can't >> keep throwing storage at it until the issues are fixed. >> >> >> On 28/04/15 01:49, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> >> >> It will get to the ceph mainline eventually. We're still reviewing and >> testing the fix, and there's more work to be done on the cleanup tool. >> >> Yehuda >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Ben" <[email protected]> >> To: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" < [email protected] > >> Cc: "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:02:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Shadow Files >> >> Are these fixes going to make it into the repository versions of ceph, >> or will we be required to compile and install manually? >> >> On 2015-04-26 02:29, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub wrote: >> >> >> Yeah, that's definitely something that we'd address soon. >> >> Yehuda >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Ben" <[email protected]> >> To: "Ben Hines" < [email protected] >, "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" >> < [email protected] > >> Cc: "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 5:14:11 PM >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Shadow Files >> >> Definitely need something to help clear out these old shadow files. >> >> I'm sure our cluster has around 100TB of these shadow files. >> >> I've written a script to go through known objects to get prefixes of >> objects >> that should exist to compare to ones that shouldn't, but the time it >> takes >> to do this over millions and millions of objects is just too long. >> >> On 25/04/15 09:53, Ben Hines wrote: >> >> >> >> When these are fixed it would be great to get good steps for listing / >> cleaning up any orphaned objects. I have suspicions this is affecting >> us. >> >> thanks- >> >> -Ben >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub < >> [email protected] > >> wrote: >> >> >> These ones: >> >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10295 >> http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/11447 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Ben Jackson" <[email protected]> >> To: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" < [email protected] > >> Cc: "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 3:06:02 PM >> Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Shadow Files >> >> We were firefly, then we upgraded to giant, now we are on hammer. >> >> What issues? >> >> On 25 Apr 2015 2:12 am, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub < [email protected] > >> wrote: >> >> >> What version are you running? There are two different issues that we >> were >> fixing this week, and we should have that upstream pretty soon. >> >> Yehuda >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >> From: "Ben" <[email protected]> >> To: "ceph-users" < [email protected] > >> Cc: "Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub" < [email protected] > >> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:42:06 PM >> Subject: [ceph-users] Shadow Files >> >> We are still experiencing a problem with out gateway not properly >> clearing out shadow files. >> >> I have done numerous tests where I have: >> -Uploaded a file of 1.5GB in size using s3browser application >> -Done an object stat on the file to get its prefix >> -Done rados ls -p .rgw.buckets | grep <prefix> to count the number >> of >> shadow files associated (in this case it is around 290 shadow files) >> -Deleted said file with s3browser >> -Performed a gc list, which shows the ~290 files listed >> -Waited 24 hours to redo the rados ls -p .rgw.buckets | grep >> <prefix> >> to >> recount the shadow files only to be left with 290 files still there >> >> From log output /var/log/ceph/radosgw.log, I can see the following >> when >> clicking DELETE (this appears 290 times) >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996523 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=4718592 stripe_ofs=4718592 part_ofs=0 rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996557 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=8912896 stripe_ofs=8912896 part_ofs=0 rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996564 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs= 13107200 stripe_ofs= 13107200 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996570 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=17301504 stripe_ofs=17301504 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996576 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=21495808 stripe_ofs=21495808 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996581 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=25690112 stripe_ofs=25690112 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996586 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=29884416 stripe_ofs=29884416 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> 2015-04-24 10:43:29.996592 7f0b0afb5700 0 >> RGWObjManifest::operator++(): >> result: ofs=34078720 stripe_ofs=34078720 part_ofs=0 >> rule->part_size=0 >> >> In this same log, I also see the gc process saying it is removing >> said >> file (these records appear 290 times too) >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.926952 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.928572 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.929636 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.930448 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.931226 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.932103 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> 2015-04-23 14:16:27.933470 7f15be0ee700 0 gc::process: removing >> .rgw.buckets:<objectname> >> >> So even though it appears that the GC is processing its removal, the >> shadow files remain! >> >> Please help! >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com >> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
