Dear all
We are running Ceph Pacific (16.2.15) with RadosGW and have been getting "large omap
objects" health warnings on the RadosGW index pool. Indeed we had one bucket in
particular that was positively huge with 8'127'198 objects that had just a single shard.
But we have been seeing the message on some other buckets, too.
Eventually, we activated automatic resharding (rgw_dynamic_resharding = true)
and indeed this bucket was resharded to now 167 shards. However, I am now
getting even more large omap object warnings. On that same bucket, too. The
other buckets have not been resharded at all. They are not in the queue, either:
| radosgw-admin reshard list
[]
| grep 'Large omap object found' /var/log/ceph/ceph* | grep 'PG: ' | cut -d: -f
10 | cut -d. -f 4-5 | sort | uniq -c
2 7936686773.215
12 7937604172.149
10 7955243979.1209
9 7955243979.2480
13 7955243979.2481
12 7968198782.110
13 7968913553.67
11 7968913553.68
10 7968913553.69
11 7981210604.1
74 7981624399.1
217 7988881492.1
| radosgw-admin metadata list --metadata-key bucket.instance | grep -i
7988881492
"<bucket1_name>:<pool_name>.7988881492.1",
| radosgw-admin bucket stats --bucket <bucket1_name>
{
"bucket": "<bucket1_name>",
"num_shards": 167,
[...]
"usage": {
"rgw.main": {
"size": 9669928611955,
"size_actual": 9692804734976,
"size_utilized": 9669928611955,
"size_kb": 9443289661,
"size_kb_actual": 9465629624,
"size_kb_utilized": 9443289661,
"num_objects": 8134437
}
},
Let's check another one, too:
| radosgw-admin metadata list --metadata-key bucket.instance | grep -i
7968198782.110
"<bucket2_name>:<pool_name>.7968198782.110",
| radosgw-admin bucket stats --bucket <bucket2_name>
[...]
"num_objects": 38690
[...]
According to the documentation in [0], buckets are resharded at a threshold of
100'000 objects per shard. For both of these, that applies nicely, so it makes
sense that they are not getting resharded any further.
But why then am I getting these warnings?
Reading the documentation in [1], I can see that warnings are printed at
200'000 entries per omap object. Can I assume that one object in an RGW bucket
means 1 entry in an omap object? Or is that a missconception?
Now, here is my working theory. Please let me know if that has any merit or if
I'm completely off:
The affected buckets have versioning activated. Plus object locking too. They
get used by a backup software (Kopia) that uses these features to provide
ransomware protection. So my thinking is that maybe with versioning active,
each object in a bucket could result in multiple omap entries, maybe one per
version or something?
If that is the case, then maybe I should reduce `rgw_max_objs_per_shard` from
100'000 to something like 10'000 to have the buckets resharded more
aggressively?
But then again, that assumes a lot. For example, that assumes that the
num_objects counter in the bucket stats does not count up on versioned objects.
So my assumption could be completely whack.
What do you think? What can I do to get rid of the large omap objects? Is more
resharding going to help? What else could I check?
Sincerely
Niklaus Hofer
Links:
[0] https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/radosgw/dynamicresharding/
#confval-rgw_max_objs_per_shard
[1] https://docs.ceph.com/en/latest/rados/operations/health-checks/
#large-omap-objects
--
stepping stone AG
Wasserwerkgasse 7
CH-3011 Bern
Telefon: +41 31 332 53 63
www.stepping-stone.ch
niklaus.ho...@stepping-stone.ch
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io
To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-le...@ceph.io
