Hi Dan The second link you refer to is, I believe, version-agnostic. (And s3cmd is also version-unaware). So "an object" would expire after x days, rather than "non-current versions of an object". I've re-read the first description several times, and remembering that it only applies to versioned buckets, still think that it is the correct xml to specify how long non-current versions are retained (which is what I want). It is also the exact same policy that I used without problem on 15.2.3, and also one that I use on AWS S3 itself.... Regards, Chris On 05/08/2020 14:08, Dan van der Ster wrote:
Hi Chris,
Is it possible that this is the correct behaviour for NoncurrentDays expiration?
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/API_NoncurrentVersionExpirat...
AFAIK, the xml to expire *only* the versions older than x days is somewhat different:
https://clouddocs.web.cern.ch/object_store/s3cmd.html#object-expiration-with...
.. Dan
On Wed, 5 Aug 2020, 14:52 Chris Palmer, <chris@cpalmer.eclipse.co.uk <mailto:chris@cpalmer.eclipse.co.uk>> wrote:
This is starting to look like a regression error in Octopus 15.2.4.
After cleaning things up by deleting all old versions, and deleting and recreating the bucket lifecycle policy (see below), I then let it run. Each day a new version got created, dating back to 17 July (correct). Until this morning when we went over the 18-day non-current expiration: this morning all but the latest version of each object disappeared - which is what happened the midnight following after our 15.2.3->15.2.4 upgrade.
So instead of a gently rolling 18-days of versions (on 15.2.3), we now build up to 18 days after which all non-current versions get deleted (on 15.2.4).
Anyone come across versioning problems on 15.2.4?
Thanks, Chris
On 17/07/2020 09:11, Chris Palmer wrote: > This got worse this morning. An RGW daemon crashed at midnight with a > segfault, and the backtrace hints that it was processing the > expiration rule: > > "backtrace": [ > "(()+0x12730) [0x7f97b8c4e730]", > "(()+0x15878a) [0x7f97b862378a]", > "(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, > std::allocator<char> >::compare(std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, > std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > const&) const+0x23) > [0x7f97c25d3e43]", > "(LCOpAction_DMExpiration::check(lc_op_ctx&, > std::chrono::time_point<ceph::time_detail::real_clock, > std::chrono::duration<unsigned long, std::ratio<1l, 1000000000l> > > >*)+0x87) [0x7f97c283d127]", > "(LCOpRule::process(rgw_bucket_dir_entry&, DoutPrefixProvider > const*)+0x1b8) [0x7f97c281cbc8]", > "(()+0x5b836d) [0x7f97c281d36d]", > "(WorkQ::entry()+0x247) [0x7f97c28302d7]", > "(()+0x7fa3) [0x7f97b8c43fa3]", > "(clone()+0x3f) [0x7f97b85c44cf]" > > One object version got removed when it should not have. > > In an attempt to clean things up I have manually deleted all > non-current versions, and removed and recreated the (same) lifecycle > policy. I will also create a new test bucket with a similar policy and > test that in parallel. We will see what happens tomorrow.... > > Thanks, Chris > > > On 16/07/2020 08:22, Chris Palmer wrote: >> I have an RGW bucket (backups) that is versioned. A nightly job >> creates a new version of a few objects. There is a lifecycle policy >> (see below) that keeps 18 days of versions. This has been working >> perfectly and has not been changed. Until I upgraded Octopus... >> >> The nightly job creates separate log files, including a listing of >> the object versions. From these I can see that: >> >> 13/7 02:14 versions from 13/7 01:13 back to 24/6 01:17 (correct) >> >> 14/7 02:14 versions from 14/7 01:13 back to 25/6 01:14 (correct) >> >> 14/7 10:00 upgrade Octopus 15.2.3 -> 15.2.4 >> >> 15/7 02:14 versions from 15/7 01:13 back to 25/6 01:14 (would have >> expected 25/6 to have expired) >> >> 16/7 02:14 versions from 16/7 01:13 back to 15/7 01:13 (now all >> pre-upgrade versions have wrongly disappeared) >> >> It's not a big deal for me as they are only backups, providing it >> continues to work correctly from now on. However it may affect some >> other people much more. >> >> Any ideas on the root cause? And if it is likely to be stable again now? >> >> Thanks, Chris >> >> { >> "Rules": [ >> { >> "Expiration": { >> "ExpiredObjectDeleteMarker": true >> }, >> "ID": "Expiration & incomplete uploads", >> "Prefix": "", >> "Status": "Enabled", >> "NoncurrentVersionExpiration": { >> "NoncurrentDays": 18 >> }, >> "AbortIncompleteMultipartUpload": { >> "DaysAfterInitiation": 1 >> } >> } >> ] >> } >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> >> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io> > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> > To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io> _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- ceph-users@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users@ceph.io> To unsubscribe send an email to ceph-users-leave@ceph.io <mailto:ceph-users-leave@ceph.io>