Hello Ceph-Users,
I just switched from a single to a multi-site setup with all sorts of
bucket sizes and large differences in the number of stored objects.
Usually resharding is handled by RADOSGW automagically whenever a
certain object count per shard is reached, 100k per default.
The functionality is nicely documented at:
https://docs.ceph.com/en/octopus/radosgw/dynamicresharding/
Also mentioned there is that dynamic resharding is NOT possible in
multisite environments.
Apparently there are efforts to implement (?) multisite-resharding with
Ceph 17 (Quincy) ...
https://tracker.ceph.com/projects/rgw/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f%5B%5D=cf_3&op%5Bcf_3%5D=%3D&v%5Bcf_3%5D%5B%5D=multisite-reshard&f%5B%5D=&c%5B%5D=project&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=updated_on&c%5B%5D=category&c%5B%5D=fixed_version&c%5B%5D=cf_3&group_by=&t%5B%5D=
But how should I or do you handle ever growing buckets in the meantime?
While a larger number of index shards for all (new) buckets might come
to mind and would avoid the described issues with too many objects for
a while, this also has long known issues and downsides:
* http://cephnotes.ksperis.com/blog/2015/05/12/radosgw-big-index
Looking at my zones I can see that the master zone (converted from
previously single-site setup) has
bucket_index_max_shards=0
while the other, secondary zone has
bucket_index_max_shards=11
Should I align this and use "11" as the default static number of shards
for all new buckets then?
Maybe an even higher (prime) number just to be save?
Regards
Christian
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
