Do I recall that the number of shards is ideally odd, or even prime? Performance might be increased by indexless buckets if the application can handle > On Aug 29, 2022, at 10:06 AM, J. Eric Ivancich <ivancich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Generally it’s a good thing. There’s less contention for bucket index updates when, for example, lots of writes are happening together. Dynamic resharding will take things up to 1999 shards on its own with the default config. > > Given that we use hashing of objet names to determine which shard they go to, the most complicated operation is bucket listing, which has to retrieve entries from each shard, order them, and return them to the client. And it has to do this in batches of about 1000 at a time. > > It looks like you’re expecting on the order of 10,000,000 objects in these buckets, so I imagine you’re not going to be listing them with any regularity. > > Eric > (he/him) > >> On Aug 29, 2022, at 12:06 PM, Boris Behrens <bb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> I have some buckets that would require >100 shards and I would like to ask >> if there are any downsides to have these many shards on a bucket? >> >> Cheers >> Boris >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx >> > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |