On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 07:35:26PM +0300, Aleksei Gutikov wrote: > Hi all. > > While rgw bucket index, theoretically, with reasonable latency can > handle up to 10M objects (100 shards of 100k each), > and rgw user's bucket index can handle, theoretically again, up to 100k > buckets. One of the scaling concerns I'd talked about before was bucket indices: even with shards as you note, performance of large buckets isn't great. I have pondered about how to redesign the index for performance, and one of the better performing options I decided at least for the moment was probably going to be via multiple levels of index. > Or, maybe it is possible to store small pieces of data in omap? > As I understand space overhead would be much smaller in this case. > And what about backfilling and remapping for omap? I'd go for the OMAP rather than packing into a single RADOS object. However, how small are you talking about? Beyond 128 bytes I think it would still be better in an object. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Asst. Treasurer E-Mail : robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
