# ILM pattern is incrementing by 2 after using delete phase

**URL:** https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218
**Category:** Elasticsearch
**Tags:** ilm-index-lifecycle-management
**Created:** [July 20, 2022, 11:00pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218 "2022-07-20T23:00:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![cl3dson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@cl3dson](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/cl3dson)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2022, 11:00pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218/1 "2022-07-20T23:00:32Z")

</div>

Hey Everyone, I am trying ILM as a possible solution for some project at work, everything was working as expected based on the documentation, until the point I described a delete phase in the ILM policy, the indices are being delete as expected but I noticed the name pattern of new indices created started increasing by 2 instead of 1.

 ![Screen Shot 2022-07-20 at 19.54.30](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/0/5/05912e71813f7139b5cafaa1e6067e32d44048b2.png)

At first I suspected indices were being created and deleted right away, but checking ElasticSearch logs where I can see logs describing the phase transitions for the indices, it seems the "missing" indices were never created, what makes me think this is some kind of bug.

this is the ILM policy definition by the way:

```auto
{
  "policy" : {
      "phases" : {
        "warm" : {
          "min_age" : "10m",
          "actions" : { }
        },
        "cold" : {
          "min_age" : "15m",
          "actions" : {
            
          }
        },
        "hot" : {
          "min_age" : "0ms",
          "actions" : {
            "rollover" : {
              "max_age" : "5m"
            }
          }
        },
        "delete" : {
          "min_age" : "20m",
          "actions" : {
            "delete" : {
              
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
}

```

If this is not a bug, could someone please explain how delete phase or the fact that some indices are deleted could affect the name generation for new indices created by rollover?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![warkolm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/warkolm/32/39224_2.png) [@warkolm](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/warkolm)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2022, 11:03pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218/2 "2022-07-20T23:03:41Z")

</div>

Welcome to our community! 😃

Are these `min_age` timings what you are actually using?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![cl3dson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/919ad9/32.png) [@cl3dson](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/cl3dson)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2022, 11:17pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218/3 "2022-07-20T23:17:03Z")

</div>

Thanks warkolm. those values are not for any real use case, but since I am doing some discovery on ILM, I reduced the values so I can check the results and how the indices behave quicker.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)
#### Post date: [August 17, 2022, 11:17pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/ilm-pattern-is-incrementing-by-2-after-using-delete-phase/310218/4 "2022-08-17T23:17:59Z")

</div>

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.