Hi, >> Can I make existing bucket blind? I didn't found a way to do that. >> And how can I make ordinary and blind buckets coexist in one Ceph cluster? The only way I see now - change configuration\restart services\create new bucket and roll back. Maybe someone from Ceph developers can add some comments. Thanks! Stas On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Василий Ангапов <angapov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
 |