Right now our main focus is on the Veeam use case (VMWare backup), used
with an S3 storage tier. Currently we host a bucket with 125M objects
and one with 100M objects.
As Paul stated, searching common prefixes can be painful. We had some
cases that did not work (taking too much time, radosgw taking too much
memory) until the upgrade from 14.2.1 to 14.2.2, which includes an
important fix for that :-)
We expect up to 400M objects per bucket. Following the 100k
recommendation, we started with 4096 shards per bucket.
Other cases to search common prefixes took several minutes. It helped us
to reshard from 4096 to 1024, response time became nearly 3 times faster.
It feels that the main reason to have shards is to get distribution of
index operations' load over several PGs and therefore over several OSDs.
So maybe a number of shards much higher than the number of PGs or OSDs
does not help a lot? But it introduces some overhead. Maybe it would be
better to have a recommendation based on the number of OSDs involved?
The mentioned resharding (4096 -> 1024) itself worked ("completed
successfully"), but the removal of one of the old indexes did not. The
cluster saw an OSD going down, which seems to have aborted the cleanup.
This OSD stayed up, but there were timeouts, probably during RocksDB
compaction (from looking at the OSD log). The affected OSD has the
highest number of PGs of the index pool. Again, this would suggest that
a lot of shards does not help when many shards are processed together in
one RocksDB.
Manually removing the objects of the old index one by one was no
problem. Maybe dynamic resharding could do it similarly to avoid the
RocksDB overload? Or RocksDB could be made to stay responsive?
Harry
On 31.07.19 20:02, Paul Emmerich wrote:
Hi,
we are seeing a trend towards rather large RGW S3 buckets lately.
we've worked on
several clusters with 100 - 500 million objects in a single bucket, and we've
been asked about the possibilities of buckets with several billion objects more
than once.
From our experience: buckets with tens of million objects work just fine with
no big problems usually. Buckets with hundreds of million objects require some
attention. Buckets with billions of objects? "How about indexless buckets?" -
"No, we need to list them".
A few stories and some questions:
1. The recommended number of objects per shard is 100k. Why? How was this
default configuration derived?
It doesn't really match my experiences. We know a few clusters running with
larger shards because resharding isn't possible for various reasons at the
moment. They sometimes work better than buckets with lots of shards.
So we've been considering to at least double that 100k target shard size
for large buckets, that would make the following point far less annoying.
2. Many shards + ordered object listing = lots of IO
Unfortunately telling people to not use ordered listings when they don't really
need them doesn't really work as their software usually just doesn't support
that :(
A listing request for X objects will retrieve up to X objects from each shard
for ordering them. That will lead to quite a lot of traffic between the OSDs
and the radosgw instances, even for relatively innocent simple queries as X
defaults to 1000 usually.
Simple example: just getting the first page of a bucket listing with 4096
shards fetches around 1 GB of data from the OSD to return ~300kb or so to the
S3 client.
I've got two clusters here that are only used for some relatively low-bandwidth
backup use case here. However, there are a few buckets with hundreds of millions
of objects that are sometimes being listed by the backup system.
The result is that this cluster has an average read IO of 1-2 GB/s, all going
to the index pool. Not a big deal since that's coming from SSDs and goes over
80 Gbit/s LACP bonds. But it does pose the question about scalability
as the user-
visible load created by the S3 clients is quite low.
3. Deleting large buckets
Someone accidentaly put 450 million small objects into a bucket and only noticed
when the cluster ran full. The bucket isn't needed, so just delete it and case
closed?
Deleting is unfortunately far slower than adding objects, also
radosgw-admin leaks
memory during deletion: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/40700
Increasing --max-concurrent-ios helps with deletion speed (option does effect
deletion concurrency, documentation says it's only for other specific commands).
Since the deletion is going faster than new data is being added to that cluster
the "solution" was to run the deletion command in a memory-limited cgroup and
restart it automatically after it gets killed due to leaking.
How could the bucket deletion of the future look like? Would it be possible
to put all objects in buckets into RADOS namespaces and implement some kind
of efficient namespace deletion on the OSD level similar to how pool deletions
are handled at a lower level?
4. Common prefixes could filtered in the rgw class on the OSD instead
of in radosgw
Consider a bucket with 100 folders with 1000 objects in each and only one shard
/p1/1, /p1/2, ..., /p1/1000, /p2/1, /p2/2, ..., /p2/1000, ... /p100/1000
Now a user wants to list / with aggregating common prefixes on the
delimiter / and
wants up to 1000 results.
So there'll be 100 results returned to the client: the common prefixes
p1 to p100.
How much data will be transfered between the OSDs and radosgw for this request?
How many omap entries does the OSD scan?
radosgw will ask the (single) index object to list the first 1000 objects. It'll
return 1000 objects in a quite unhelpful way: /p1/1, /p1/2, ...., /p1/1000
radosgw will discard 999 of these and detect one common prefix and continue the
iteration at /p1/\xFF to skip the remaining entries in /p1/ if there are any.
The OSD will then return everything in /p2/ in that next request and so on.
So it'll internally list every single object in that bucket. That will
be a problem
for large buckets and having lots of shards doesn't help either.
This shouldn't be too hard to fix: add an option "aggregate prefixes" to the RGW
class method and duplicate the fast-forward logic from radosgw in
cls_rgw. It doesn't
even need to change the response type or anything, it just needs to
limit entries in
common prefixes to one result.
Is this a good idea or am I missing something?
IO would be reduced by a factor of 100 for that particular
pathological case. I've
unfortunately seen a real-world setup that I think hits a case like that.
Paul
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@lists.ceph.com
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
