cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

3.0dev store usage: feature or bug?

garu
Champ in-the-making
Champ in-the-making
Hi all, i'm evaluating alfresco and i've found a different behavior in how store usage is calculated between 2.9B and 3.0dev released on june 9.

1- uploaded a doc file of about 25k, usage for the user is 25k, contentstore usage 25k
2- copy/paste all of that file, usage for the user 75k (?), contentstore usage 25k
3- copy/paste all of that file again, usage for the user 125k (?), contentstore usage 25k
4- delete one copy (full delete from "manage deleted items"), usage for the user 100k (?), contentstore usage 25k
5- delete second copy (full delete from "manage deleted items"), usage for the user 75k (?), contentstore usage 25k
6- delete uploaded file (full delete from "manage deleted items"), usage for the user 50k (?), contentstore usage 25k
7- wait for "protectDays" (set to 1) to expire, the file is deleted from contentstore, but is not moved to contentstore.deleted even if "deletedContentBackupListener" is defined for "baseContentStoreCleaner" bean (and this looks as a bug on its own)
8- final result, contentstore is empty but usage for the user still shows 50k and i found no way to reset it to zero

Any idea?
Thanks,  Gabriele
2 REPLIES 2

janv
Employee
Employee
Thanks for the feedback. The user usages will count each copy even if there is no change in underlying content, so the logical usage may be higher than physical storage. However, this does appear to be a bug, since each copy should only add 25k, where as it seems to be adding double in your case. The issue seems to be intermittent and may also affect 2.9B. I have raised a JIRA bug against 2.9 (https://issues.alfresco.com/browse/ETWONINE-44).

Thanks,
Jan

garu
Champ in-the-making
Champ in-the-making
Ok, thank you.
And what do you think about the fact that despite the "deletedContentBackupListener" is defined, files deleted from contentstore are no longer moved to contenstore.deleted?
Has anything changed that's not yet documented?
Remember that for 2.9B the very same configuration was working as currently documented in wiki.

Best regards,  Gabriele