Idea #21078
Updated by Peter Amstutz about 1 year ago
I need to delete 100s of TB of data from S3. It seems we can submit delete requests at a pretty high rate, but "trash" operations are a bottleneck. I currently have trash operations at 40 concurrent operations, and it is reports running about 60 keep operations per second. In 3 hours it is able to put somewhere between 20,000 and 90,000 blocks in the trash. At the current rate, it is deleting somewhere between 1 TiB to 5 TiB data on each 3 hour EmptyTrash cycle. I think the concurrency rates are actually a little bit too high, the log is showing 503 errors, and since I dialed up the concurrency, it hasn't been able to return a full object index to keep-web, presumably because the list objects requests are also failing with 503 errors. I'm looking at the code and maybe this is a situation where setting BlobTrashLifetime to 0 and UnsafeDelete is the best option, but aside from forfeiting the ability to recover from a keep-balance mistake: mistake, we don't document what the risk is. <pre> # Enable deletion (garbage collection) even when the # configured BlobTrashLifetime is zero. WARNING: eventual # consistency may result in race conditions that can cause # data loss. Do not enable this unless you understand and # accept the risk. </pre> I don't know how anyone could understand the risk since it isn't documented anywhere.