Hey Wido, On Dec 17, 2015 09:52, "Wido den Hollander" <w...@42on.com> wrote: > > On 12/17/2015 06:29 AM, Ben Hines wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Florian Haas <flor...@hastexo.com > > <mailto:flor...@hastexo.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Ben & everyone, > > > > > > Ben, you wrote elsewhere > > ( http://lists.ceph.com/pipermail/ceph-users-ceph.com/2015-August/003955.html) > > that you found approx. 900k objects to be the threshold where index > > sharding becomes necessary. Have you found that to be a reasonable > > rule of thumb, as in "try 1-2 shards per million objects in your most > > populous bucket"? Also, do you reckon that beyond that, more shards > > make things worse? > > > > > > > > Oh, and to answer this part. I didn't do that much experimentation > > unfortunately. I actually am using about 24 index shards per bucket > > currently and we delete each bucket once it hits about a million > > objects. (it's just a throwaway cache for us) Seems ok, so i stopped > > tweaking. > > > > I have a use case where I need to store 350 Million objects in a single > bucket.
How many OSDs are in that cluster? > I tested with 4096 shards and that works. Creating the bucket takes a > few seconds though. Does "that works" mean that you have actually uploaded 350M objects into that one bucket? If so, can you give me a feel for your typical object size? Also, what's the performance drop you saw in bucket listing, vs. having fewer shards or no sharding at all? Cheers, Florian
_______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
