Ceph » rgw

Hi all,
Thanks for the feature and the work to backport it to Nautilus!
We are currently experiencing such a bucket index listing limitation in one of our buckets which has millions of objects and we were in contact with Paul for this case as well.

We hope this feature will improve the performance for our usecase.

What is the target backport release of this feature?
Thanks in advance for your time.

I assume this is not going to be backported to nautilus? If so, it also needs #44353 AFAICT

Nathan Cutler wrote:

large-scale backport already assigned to Eric

I'm unclear what are you looking for, Nathan.... Are you looking for more information from me?

Eric Ivancich wrote:

Nathan Cutler wrote:

large-scale backport already assigned to Eric

I'm unclear what are you looking for, Nathan.... Are you looking for more information from me?

This is a non-trivial backport that needs to be done carefully. So, to clarify a little what I'm trying to achieve. When a backport issue is in "New" status, backporters will be tempted to run the backporting script on it. So we get multiple people trying to run the script, seeing the conflicts, and moving on. Sometimes even the same person runs the script on the issue multiple times.

To avoid wasting people's time, I change the status to "Need More Info" to signify that the backport is non-trivial.

Nathan Cutler wrote:

Eric Ivancich wrote:

Nathan Cutler wrote:

large-scale backport already assigned to Eric

I'm unclear what are you looking for, Nathan.... Are you looking for more information from me?

This is a non-trivial backport that needs to be done carefully. So, to clarify a little what I'm trying to achieve. When a backport issue is in "New" status, backporters will be tempted to run the backporting script on it. So we get multiple people trying to run the script, seeing the conflicts, and moving on. Sometimes even the same person runs the script on the issue multiple times.

To avoid wasting people's time, I change the status to "Need More Info" to signify that the backport is non-trivial.

Nathan,

I don't think this backport will ever be done; I don't think it's worth the effort. I'd like to close this as Rejected. And then I'd like to remove the backport entry from https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/41051 and mark that as resolved.

Would you be OK with the above?

Thanks,

Eric

I'd like to close this as Rejected. And then I'd like to remove the backport entry from https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/41051 and mark that as resolved.

Eric, as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to mark any backport issue as Rejected when and as you see fit.

However, when a backport ticket is placed in "Rejected" state, the backport should remain in the Backport field of the parent issue, so please don't remove it. If it is removed, the script sees that a backport issue exists for a backport that was not called for and complains, which then causes me to re-add the backport to the Backport field to appease the script ;-)