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 <ivanc...@redhat.com> 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 <b...@kervyn.de> 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@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
