I've same issue and joined to the club. Almost every deleted bucket is still there due to multisite. Also I've removed secondary zone and stopped sync but these stale-instance's still there. Before adding new secondary zone I want to remove them. If you gonna run anything let me know please.
<dhils...@performair.com> adresine sahip kullanıcı 14 Nis 2021 Çar, 21:20 tarihinde şunu yazdı: > Casey; > > That makes sense, and I appreciate the explanation. > > If I were to shut down all uses of RGW, and wait for replication to catch > up, would this then address most known issues with running this command in > a multi-site environment? Can I offline RADOSGW daemons as an added > precaution? > > Thank you, > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > Director – Information Technology > Perform Air International Inc. > dhils...@performair.com > www.PerformAir.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Casey Bodley [mailto:cbod...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:03 AM > To: Dominic Hilsbos > Cc: k0...@k0ste.ru; ceph-users@ceph.io > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Re: Revisit Large OMAP Objects > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM <dhils...@performair.com> wrote: > > > > Konstantin; > > > > Dynamic resharding is disabled in multisite environments. > > > > I believe you mean radosgw-admin reshard stale-instances rm. > > > > Documentation suggests this shouldn't be run in a multisite > environment. Does anyone know the reason for this? > > say there's a bucket with 10 objects in it, and that's been fully > replicated to a secondary zone. if you want to remove the bucket, you > delete its objects then delete the bucket > > when the bucket is deleted, rgw can't delete its bucket instance yet > because the secondary zone may not be caught up with sync - it > requires access to the bucket instance (and its index) to sync those > last 10 object deletions > > so the risk with 'stales-instances rm' in multisite is that you might > delete instances before other zones catch up, which can lead to > orphaned objects > > > > > Is it, in fact, safe, even in a multisite environment? > > > > Thank you, > > > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > > Director – Information Technology > > Perform Air International Inc. > > dhils...@performair.com > > www.PerformAir.com > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Konstantin Shalygin [mailto:k0...@k0ste.ru] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:15 AM > > To: Dominic Hilsbos > > Cc: ceph-users@ceph.io > > Subject: Re: [ceph-users] Revisit Large OMAP Objects > > > > Run reshard instances rm > > And reshard your bucket by hand or leave dynamic resharding process to > do this work > > > > > > k > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On 13 Apr 2021, at 19:33, dhils...@performair.com wrote: > > > > > > All; > > > > > > We run 2 Nautilus clusters, with RADOSGW replication (14.2.11 --> > 14.2.16). > > > > > > Initially our bucket grew very quickly, as I was loading old data into > it and we quickly ran into Large OMAP Object warnings. > > > > > > I have since done a couple manual reshards, which has fixed the > warning on the primary cluster. I have never been able to get rid of the > issue on the cluster with the replica. > > > > > > I prior conversation on this list led me to this command: > > > radosgw-admin reshard stale-instances list --yes-i-really-mean-it > > > > > > The results of which look like this: > > > [ > > > "nextcloud-ra:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.185262.1", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.6", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.2", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.5", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.4", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.3", > > > "nextcloud:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.53761.1", > > > "3520ae821f974340afd018110c1065b8/OS > Development:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.4298264.1", > > > > "10dfdfadb7374ea1ba37bee1435d87ad/volumebackups:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.4298264.2", > > > "WorkOrder:f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.44130.1" > > > ] > > > > > > I find this particularly interesting, as nextcloud-ra, <swift>/OS > Development, <swift>/volumbackups, and WorkOrder buckets no longer exist. > > > > > > When I run: > > > for obj in $(rados -p 300.rgw.buckets.index ls | grep > f91aeff8-a365-47b4-a1c8-928cd66134e8.3512190.1); do printf "%-60s > %7d\n" $obj $(rados -p 300.rgw.buckets.index listomapkeys $obj | wc -l); > done > > > > > > I get the expected 64 entries, with counts around 20000 +/- 1000. > > > > > > Are the above listed stale instances ok to delete? If so, how do I go > about doing so? > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Dominic L. Hilsbos, MBA > > > Director - Information Technology > > > Perform Air International Inc. > > > dhils...@performair.com > > > www.PerformAir.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > > > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
