Can I make existing bucket blind? 2016-09-22 4:23 GMT+03:00 Stas Starikevich <stas.starikevich@xxxxxxxxx>: > Ben, > > Works fine as far as I see: > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# s3cmd mb s3://test > Bucket 's3://test/' created > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# s3cmd put /etc/hosts s3://test > upload: '/etc/hosts' -> 's3://test/hosts' [1 of 1] > 196 of 196 100% in 0s 404.87 B/s done > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# s3cmd ls s3://test > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# ls -al /tmp/hosts > ls: cannot access /tmp/hosts: No such file or directory > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# s3cmd get s3://test/hosts /tmp/hosts > download: 's3://test/hosts' -> '/tmp/hosts' [1 of 1] > 196 of 196 100% in 0s 2007.56 B/s done > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# cat /tmp/hosts > 172.17.0.4 273aa9f2ee9f > > [root@ceph-mon01 ~]# radosgw-admin bucket rm --bucket=test --purge-objects > [root@ceph-mon01 ~]# > > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# s3cmd ls > [root@273aa9f2ee9f /]# > >>>If not, i imagine rados could be used to delete them manually by prefix. > That would be pain with more than few million objects :) > > Stas > > On Sep 21, 2016, at 9:10 PM, Ben Hines <bhines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks. Will try it out once we get on Jewel. > > Just curious, does bucket deletion with --purge-objects work via > radosgw-admin with the no index option? > If not, i imagine rados could be used to delete them manually by prefix. > > > On Sep 21, 2016 6:02 PM, "Stas Starikevich" <stas.starikevich@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> Since the 'Jewel' RadosGW supports blind buckets. >> To enable blind buckets configuration I used: >> >> radosgw-admin zone get --rgw-zone=default > default-zone.json >> #change index_type from 0 to 1 >> vi default-zone.json >> radosgw-admin zone set --rgw-zone=default --infile default-zone.json >> >> To apply changes you have to restart all the RGW daemons. Then all newly >> created buckets will not have index (bucket list will provide empty output), >> but GET\PUT works perfectly. >> In my tests there is no performance difference between SSD-backed indexes >> and 'blind bucket' configuration. >> >> Stas >> >> > On Sep 21, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Ben Hines <bhines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > Nice, thanks! Must have missed that one. It might work well for our use >> > case since we don't really need the index. >> > >> > -Ben >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Gregory Farnum <gfarnum@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> > On Wednesday, September 21, 2016, Ben Hines <bhines@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Yes, 200 million is way too big for a single ceph RGW bucket. We >> > encountered this problem early on and sharded our buckets into 20 buckets, >> > each which have the sharded bucket index with 20 shards. >> > >> > Unfortunately, enabling the sharded RGW index requires recreating the >> > bucket and all objects. >> > >> > The fact that ceph uses ceph itself for the bucket indexes makes RGW >> > less reliable in our experience. Instead of depending on one object you're >> > depending on two, with the index and the object itself. If the cluster has >> > any issues with the index the fact that it blocks access to the object >> > itself is very frustrating. If we could retrieve / put objects into RGW >> > without hitting the index at all we would - we don't need to list our >> > buckets. >> > >> > I don't know the details or which release it went into, but indexless >> > buckets are now a thing -- check the release notes or search the lists! :) >> > -Greg >> > >> > >> > >> > -Ben >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Wido den Hollander <wido@xxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Op 20 september 2016 om 10:55 schreef Василий Ангапов >> > > <angapov@xxxxxxxxx>: >> > > >> > > >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > Is there any way to copy rgw bucket index to another Ceph node to >> > > lower the downtime of RGW? For now I have a huge bucket with 200 >> > > million files and its backfilling is blocking RGW completely for an >> > > hour and a half even with 10G network. >> > > >> > >> > No, not really. What you really want is the bucket sharding feature. >> > >> > So what you can do is enable the sharding, create a NEW bucket and copy >> > over the objects. >> > >> > Afterwards you can remove the old bucket. >> > >> > Wido >> > >> > > Thanks! >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
 |