It may be related to http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/34307 - I have a
cluster whose OMAP size is larger than the stored data...
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:09 AM Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/31/18 5:31 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> > So it sounds like you tried what I was going to do, and
On 8/31/18 5:31 PM, Dan van der Ster wrote:
> So it sounds like you tried what I was going to do, and it broke
> things. Good to know... thanks.
>
> In our case, what triggered the extra index objects was a user running
> PUT /bucketname/ around 20 million times -- this apparently recreates
>
So it sounds like you tried what I was going to do, and it broke
things. Good to know... thanks.
In our case, what triggered the extra index objects was a user running
PUT /bucketname/ around 20 million times -- this apparently recreates
the index objects.
-- dan
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 7:20 PM
I'm glad you asked this, because it was on my to-do list. I know that based
on our not existing in the bucket marker does not mean it's safe to
delete. I have an index pool with 22k objects in it. 70 objects match
existing bucket markers. I was having a problem on the cluster and started
deleting
Replying to self...
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:56 AM Dan van der Ster wrote:
>
> Dear rgw friends,
>
> Somehow we have more than 20 million objects in our
> default.rgw.buckets.index pool.
> They are probably leftover from this issue we had last year:
>
Dear rgw friends,
Somehow we have more than 20 million objects in our
default.rgw.buckets.index pool.
They are probably leftover from this issue we had last year:
http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2017-June/018565.html
and we want to clean the leftover / unused index objects
To
