Re: Huge amounts of objects orphaned by lifecycle policy.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



hi Adam,

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:41 AM Adam Prycki <aprycki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a question. Do people use rgw lifecycle policies in production?
> I had big hopes for this technology bug in practice it seems to be very
> unreliable.
>
> Recently I've been testing different pool layouts and using lifecycle
> policy to move data between them. Once I've checked orphaned objects
> I've discovered that my pools were full of orphaned objects. One pool
> was over 1/3 orphans by volume. Orphan object belonged to data that was
> moved by lifecycle.
>
> Yesterday I decided to recreate one of the pools with 3TiB of data. All
> 3TiB was located in a single directory of some buckets. I've created a
> lifecycle which should move it all to STANDARD pool and run
> radosgw-admin lc process --bucket. After lifecycle finished executing
> ceph pool still contained 1TiB of data. Removing objects from
> rgw-orphan-list output reduced pool size to 65GiB and 17k objects.
>
> The 17k rados __shadow objects seem to belong to s3 objects which were
> not moved by lifecycle. I tried lifecycle from radosgw-admin but
> lifecycle seems to be unable to move them. s3cmd info show that they
> still report old storage class. Filenames don't contain special
> characters other than spaces. I have directories with sequentially named
> objects, some of them cannot be moved by lifecycle.
>
> Deleting all the objects form original 3TiB dataset also doesn't help.
> After running gc and orphan finding tool there are still 1,2k rados
> objects which should have been deleted but are not considered orphans.

i assume you used `radosgw-admin gc process` here - can you confirm
whether you added the --include-all option? without that option,
garbage collection won't delete objects newer than
rgw_gc_obj_min_wait=2hours in case they're still being read. it sounds
like these rados objects may still be in the gc queue, which could
explain why they aren't considered orphans

>
> I've been testing on 18.2.2.
>
> Best regards
> Adam Prycki
> _______________________________________________
> 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




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux