Make sure you use the underscore also, e.g., "default.8873277.32_".
Otherwise you could potentially erase objects you did't intend to,
like ones who start with "default.8873277.320" and such.
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ben Hines <bhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok. I'm not too familiar with the inner workings of RGW, but i would
> assume that for a bucket with these parameters:
>
> "id": "default.8873277.32",
> "marker": "default.8873277.32",
>
> Tha it would be the only bucket using the files that start with
> "default.8873277.32"
>
> default.8873277.32__shadow_.OkYjjANx6-qJOrjvdqdaHev-LHSvPhZ_15
> default.8873277.32__shadow_.a2qU3qodRf_E5b9pFTsKHHuX2RUC12g_2
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yehuda Sadeh-Weinraub
> <yeh...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> As long as you're 100% sure that the prefix is only being used for the
>> specific bucket that was previously removed, then it is safe to remove
>> these objects. But please do double check and make sure that there's
>> no other bucket that matches this prefix somehow.
>>
>> Yehuda
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Ben Hines <bhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No input, eh? (or maybe TL,DR for everyone)
>>>
>>> Short version: Presuming the bucket index shows blank/empty, which it
>>> does and is fine, would me manually deleting the rados objects with
>>> the prefix matching the former bucket's ID cause any problems?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> -Ben
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Ben Hines <bhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Ceph 0.93->94.2->94.3
>>>>
>>>> I noticed my pool used data amount is about twice the bucket used data
>>>> count.
>>>>
>>>> This bucket was emptied long ago. It has zero objects:
>>>> "globalcache01",
>>>> {
>>>> "bucket": "globalcache01",
>>>> "pool": ".rgw.buckets",
>>>> "index_pool": ".rgw.buckets.index",
>>>> "id": "default.8873277.32",
>>>> "marker": "default.8873277.32",
>>>> "owner": "...",
>>>> "ver": "0#12348839",
>>>> "master_ver": "0#0",
>>>> "mtime": "2015-03-08 11:44:11.000000",
>>>> "max_marker": "0#",
>>>> "usage": {
>>>> "rgw.none": {
>>>> "size_kb": 0,
>>>> "size_kb_actual": 0,
>>>> "num_objects": 0
>>>> },
>>>> "rgw.main": {
>>>> "size_kb": 0,
>>>> "size_kb_actual": 0,
>>>> "num_objects": 0
>>>> }
>>>> },
>>>> "bucket_quota": {
>>>> "enabled": false,
>>>> "max_size_kb": -1,
>>>> "max_objects": -1
>>>> }
>>>> },
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bucket check shows nothing:
>>>>
>>>> 16:07:09 root@sm-cephrgw4 ~ $ radosgw-admin bucket check
>>>> --bucket=globalcache01 --fix
>>>> []
>>>> 16:07:27 root@sm-cephrgw4 ~ $ radosgw-admin bucket check
>>>> --check-head-obj-locator --bucket=globalcache01 --fix
>>>> {
>>>> "bucket": "globalcache01",
>>>> "check_objects": [
>>>> ]
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, i see a lot of data for it on an OSD (all shadow files with
>>>> escaped underscores)
>>>>
>>>> [root@sm-cld-mtl-008 current]# find . -name default.8873277.32* -print
>>>> ./12.161_head/DIR_1/DIR_6/DIR_9/DIR_E/default.8873277.32\u\ushadow\u.Tos2Ms8w2BiEG7YJAZeE6zrrc\uwcHPN\u1__head_D886E961__c
>>>> ./12.161_head/DIR_1/DIR_6/DIR_9/DIR_E/DIR_1/default.8873277.32\u\ushadow\u.Aa86mlEMvpMhRaTDQKHZmcxAReFEo2J\u1__head_4A71E961__c
>>>> ./12.161_head/DIR_1/DIR_6/DIR_9/DIR_E/DIR_5/default.8873277.32\u\ushadow\u.KCiWEa4YPVaYw2FPjqvpd9dKTRBu8BR\u17__head_00B5E961__c
>>>> ./12.161_head/DIR_1/DIR_6/DIR_9/DIR_E/DIR_8/default.8873277.32\u\ushadow\u.A2K\u2H1XKR8weiSwKGmbUlsCmEB9GDF\u32__head_42E8E961__c
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> -bash-4.1$ rados -p .rgw.buckets ls | egrep '8873277\.32.+'
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.pvaIjBfisb7pMABicR9J2Bgh8JUkEfH_47
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.Wr_dGMxdSRHpoeu4gsQZXJ8t0I3JI7l_6
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.WjijDxYhLFMUYdrMjeH7GvTL1LOwcqo_3
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.3lRIhNePLmt1O8VVc2p5X9LtAVfdgUU_1
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.VqF8n7PnmIm3T9UEhorD5OsacvuHOOy_16
>>>> default.8873277.32__shadow_.Jrh59XT01rIIyOdNPDjCwl5Pe1LDanp_2
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Is there still a bug in the fix obj locator command perhaps? I suppose
>>>> can just do something like:
>>>>
>>>> rados -p .rgw.buckets cleanup --prefix default.8873277.32
>>>>
>>>> Since i want to destroy the bucket anyway, but if this affects other
>>>> buckets, i may want to clean those a better way.
>>>>
>>>> -Ben
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
