Score:1

Ceph reports bucket space utilization and total cluster utilization that is inconsistent

cn flag

I copied the contents of an older Ceph cluster to a new Ceph cluster using rclone. Because several of the buckets had tens of millions of objects in a single directory I had to enumerate these individually and use the "rclone copyto" command to move them. After copying, the number of objects match but the space utilization on the second Ceph cluster is much higher.

Each Ceph cluster is configured with the default triple redundancy.

The older Ceph cluster has 1.4PiB of raw capacity.

The older Ceph cluster has 526TB in total bucket utilization as reported by "radosgw-admin metadata bucket stats". The "ceph -s" status on this cluster shows 360TiB of object utilization with a total capacity of 1.4PiB for 77% space utilization. The two indicated quantities of 360TiB used in the cluster and 526TB used by buckets are significantly different. There isn't enough raw capacity on this cluster to hold 526TB.

After copying the contents to the new Ceph cluster, the total bucket utilization of 553TB is reflected in the "ceph -s" status as 503TiB. This is slightly higher than the bucket total of the source I assume due to larger drive's block sizes, but the status utilization matches the sum of the bucket utilization as expected. The number of objects in each bucket of the destination cluster matches the source buckets also.

Is this a setting in the first Ceph cluster that merges duplicate objects like a simplistic compression? There isn't enough capacity in the first Ceph cluster to hold much over 500TB so this seems like the only way this could happen. I assume that when two objects are the same, that each bucket gets a symlink like pointer to the same object. The new Ceph cluster doesn't seem to have this capability or it's not set to behave this way.

The first cluster is Ceph version 13.2.6 and the second is version 17.2.3.

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.