Thanks Casey for the reply, more on the tracker.
Thanks!
On 9/9/16, 11:32 PM, "ceph-users on behalf of Casey Bodley" <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of cbodley@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
My (limited) understanding of this metadata heap pool is that it's an
archive of metadata entries and their versions. According to Yehuda,
this was intended to support recovery operations by reverting specific
metadata objects to a previous version. But nothing has been implemented
so far, and I'm not aware of any plans to do so. So these objects are
being created, but never read or deleted.
This was discussed in the rgw standup this morning, and we agreed that
this archival should be made optional (and default to off), most likely
by assigning an empty pool name to the zone's 'metadata_heap' field.
I've created a ticket at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/17256 to track
this issue.
Casey
On 09/09/2016 11:01 AM, Warren Wang - ISD wrote:
> A little extra context here. Currently the metadata pool looks like it is
> on track to exceed the number of objects in the data pool, over time. In a
> brand new cluster, we¹re already up to almost 2 million in each pool.
>
> NAME ID USED %USED MAX AVAIL
> OBJECTS
> default.rgw.buckets.data 17 3092G 0.86 345T
> 2013585
> default.rgw.meta 25 743M 0 172T
> 1975937
>
> We¹re concerned this will be unmanageable over time.
>
> Warren Wang
>
>
> On 9/9/16, 10:54 AM, "ceph-users on behalf of Pavan Rallabhandi"
> <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
> PRallabhandi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Any help on this is much appreciated, am considering to fix this, given
>> it¹s confirmed an issue unless am missing something obvious.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Pavan.
>>
>> On 9/8/16, 5:04 PM, "ceph-users on behalf of Pavan Rallabhandi"
>> <ceph-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of
>> PRallabhandi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Trying it one more time on the users list.
>>
>> In our clusters running Jewel 10.2.2, I see default.rgw.meta pool
>> running into large number of objects, potentially to the same range of
>> objects contained in the data pool.
>>
>> I understand that the immutable metadata entries are now stored in
>> this heap pool, but I couldn¹t reason out why the metadata objects are
>> left in this pool even after the actual bucket/object/user deletions.
>>
>> The put_entry() promptly seems to be storing the same in the heap
>> pool
>> https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/master/src/rgw/rgw_metadata.cc#L880,
>> but I do not see them to be reaped ever. Are they left there for some
>> reason?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Pavan.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ceph-users mailing list
>> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. *** Walmart Confidential ***
> _______________________________________________
> ceph-users mailing list
> ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
