Hi Boris, I’m a little confused. The pastebin seems to show that you can stat "ff7a8b0c-07e6-463a-861b-78f0adeba8ad.81095307.17600__multipart_available_file1.pdf.2~ve8VhAEvaRSzAPfacz9rI-aLMpLY_Yw.1”, but I thought it was missing. Can you clarify?
The bug has been in RGW for a quite a while, well before octopus. It involves a race condition with a very narrow window, so normally only encountered in large, busy clusters. Also, I think it’s up to the s3 client whether to use multipart upload. Do you know which s3 client the user was using? Eric (he/him) > On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:02 AM, Boris Behrens <b...@kervyn.de> wrote: > > Hmm.. I will check what the user is deleting. Maybe this is it. > Do you know if this bug is new in 15.2.16? > > I can't share the data, but I can share the metadata: > https://pastebin.com/raw/T1YYLuec <https://pastebin.com/raw/T1YYLuec> > > For the missing files I have, the multipart file is not available in rados, > but the 0 byte file is. > The rest is more or less identical. > > The seem to use the aws-sdk-dotnet (aws-sdk-dotnet-coreclr/3.3.110.57 > <http://3.3.110.57/> aws-sdk-dotnet-core/3.3.106.11 <http://3.3.106.11/>), > but so small multiparts are very strange. I guess you can really screw up > configs but who am I to judge. > > Am Di., 14. Juni 2022 um 00:29 Uhr schrieb J. Eric Ivancich > <ivanc...@redhat.com <mailto:ivanc...@redhat.com>>: > There is no known bug that would cause the rados objects underlying an RGW > object to be removed without a user requesting the RGW object be deleted. > > There is a known bug where the bucket index might not get updated correctly > after user-requested operations. So perhaps the user removed the rgw object, > but it still incorrectly shows up in the bucket index. The PR for the fix for > that bug merged into the octopus branch, but after 15.2.16. See: > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/45902 > <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/45902> > > So it should be in the next octopus release. > > I also find it odd that a 250KB file gets a multipart object. What do we know > about the original object? Do we know it’s size? Could the multipart upload > never have completed? In that case there could be incomplete multipart > entries in the bucket index, but they should never have been finalized into a > regular bucket index entry. > > Are you willing to share all the bucket index entries related to this object? > > Eric > (he/him) _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
