And how can I make ordinary and blind buckets coexist in one Ceph cluster? 2016-09-22 11:57 GMT+03:00 Василий Ангапов <angapov@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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
 |