There are no hard limits, or even firm limits. Performance will slowly degrade as you add more objects to a bucket. It's up to you to decide what's acceptable. Rules of thumb that have been posted to the list before: The list of buckets is stored in a single object. Millions of buckets is a bad idea. The list of objects in a bucket is stored in a single objects. 10's of millions of objects in a bucket is a bad idea. Both of these are limitations that Inktank plans to fix... eventually. For my setup, I'm putting a million object into a bucket, then moving on to a new bucket. I haven't benchmarked it, but performance is more than acceptable for my needs. I have one bucket with 2.5M objects in it. Adding and Reading objects in that bucket isn't noticeably slower (on a human scale) than a fresh bucket. The only thing that I notice as being really slow is listing the contents of a bucket. It takes > 10 minutes to list the contents of a bucket with 1 million items using `s3cmd ls`. The more objects, the slower it goes. It appears to be O(n), but I haven't taken the time to prove that. On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Steve Kingsland < steve.kingsland at opower.com> wrote: > What's the upper bound on the number of objects you can store in a bucket, > before read/write performance starts to degrade? > > > *Steve Kingsland* > > Senior Software Engineer > > *Opower* <http://www.opower.com/> > > > *We?re hiring! See jobs here <http://www.opower.com/careers>* > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users at lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/attachments/20140926/01b8c818/attachment.htm>
 |