Hi Ben & everyone, just following up on this one from July, as I don't think there's been a reply here then. On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Ben Hines <bhines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anyone have any data on optimal # of shards for a radosgw bucket index? > > We've had issues with bucket index contention with a few million+ > objects in a single bucket so i'm testing out the sharding. > > Perhaps at least one shard per OSD? Or, less? More? I'd like to make this more concrete: what about having several buckets each holding 2-4M objects, created on hammer, with 64 index shards? Is that type of fill expected to bring radosgw performance down by a factor of 5, versus an unpopulated (empty) radosgw setup? Ben, you wrote elsewhere (http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2015-August/003955.html) that you found approx. 900k objects to be the threshold where index sharding becomes necessary. Have you found that to be a reasonable rule of thumb, as in "try 1-2 shards per million objects in your most populous bucket"? Also, do you reckon that beyond that, more shards make things worse? > I noticed some discussion here regarding slow bucket listing with > ~200k obj -- http://cephnotes.ksperis.com/blog/2015/05/12/radosgw-big-index > - bucket list seems significantly impacted. > > But i'm more concerned about general object put (write) / object read > speed since 'bucket listing' is not something that we need to do. Not > sure if the index has to be completely read to write an object into > it? This is a question where I'm looking for an answer, too. Cheers, Florian _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |