On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:41 AM Boris Behrens <bb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've tried it the other way around and let cat give out all escaped chars > and the did the grep: > > # cat -A omapkeys_list | grep -aFn '<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>' > 9844:<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>$ > 9845:<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>^@v913^@<SECOND_PART>$ > 88010:M-^@1000_<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>^@<SECOND_PART>$ > 128981:M-^@1001_<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>$ > > Did anyone ever saw something like this? > > Am Mo., 13. Feb. 2023 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb Boris Behrens <bb@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > So here is some more weirdness: > > I've piped a list of all omapkeys into a file: (dedacted customer data > > with placeholders in <>) > > > > # grep -aFn '<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>' omapkeys_list > > 9844:<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE> > > 9845:<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>v913<SECOND_PART> > > 88010:�1000_<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE><SECOND_PART> > > 128981:�1001_<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE> > > > > # grep -aFn '<PARENT>/<FOLDER><FIRST_PART_OF_FILE><SECOND_PART>' > > omapkeys_list > > <Returns nothing> > > > > # vim omapkeys_list +88010 (copy pasted from terminal) > > <80>1000_<PARENT>/<FOLDER>/<FIRST_PART_OF_FILE>^@<SECOND_PART> > > > > Any idea what this is? > > > > Am Mo., 13. Feb. 2023 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Boris Behrens <bb@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > >> Hi, > >> I have one bucket that showed up with a large omap warning, but the > >> amount of objects in the bucket, does not align with the amount of omap > >> keys. The bucket is sharded to get rid of the "large omapkeys" warning. > >> > >> I've counted all the omapkeys of one bucket and it came up with 33.383.622 > >> (rados -p INDEXPOOL listomapkeys INDEXOBJECT | wc -l) > >> I've checked the amount of actual rados objects and it came up with > >> 17.095.877 > >> (rados -p DATAPOOL ls | grep BUCKETMARKER | wc -l) > >> I've checked the bucket index and it came up with 16.738.482 > >> (radosgw-admin bi list --bucket BUCKET | grep -F '"idx":' | wc -l) > >> > >> I have tried to fix it with > >> radosgw-admin bucket check --check-objects --fix --bucket BUCKET > >> but this did not change anything. > >> > >> Is this a known bug or might there be something else going on. How can I > >> investigate further? > >> > >> Cheers > >> Boris > >> -- > >> Die Selbsthilfegruppe "UTF-8-Probleme" trifft sich diesmal abweichend im > >> groüen Saal. > >> > > > > > > -- > > Die Selbsthilfegruppe "UTF-8-Probleme" trifft sich diesmal abweichend im > > groüen Saal. > > > > > -- > Die Selbsthilfegruppe "UTF-8-Probleme" trifft sich diesmal abweichend im > groüen Saal. > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx hi Boris, the bucket index is more complicated for versioned buckets than normal ones. i wrote a high-level summary of this in https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/dev/radosgw/bucket_index/#s3-object-versioning each object version may have additional keys starting with 1000_ and 1001_. the keys starting with 1000_ are sorted by time (most recent version first), and the 1001_ keys correspond to the ‘olh' entry. the output of `radosgw-admin bi list` should distinguish between these index entry types using the names "plain", "instance", and "olh" it's hard to tell from your email whether there's anything wrong, but i hope this helps with your debugging _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@xxxxxxx
 |