# Strange size difference in shards since upgrading to 6.2

**URL:** <https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238>\
**Category:** Elasticsearch\
**Created:** [March 30, 2018, 2:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238 "2018-03-30T14:29:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kstoney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@kstoney](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kstoney)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 2:29pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238/1 "2018-03-30T14:29:32Z")

</div>

Hi,  
We recently upgraded from 6.1 to 6.2 and we're noticing that some shards are getting disproportionately big.

Take these two, shard 0 from the same index, different nodes. 16gig on one, 6 gig on the other?

```auto
|metrics20-2018.03.30|0|r|STARTED|4698496|16.1gb|10.187.21.3|elasticsearch-data-hot-5|
|metrics20-2018.03.30|0|p|STARTED|4663657|5.9gb|10.187.9.3|elasticsearch-data-hot-1|

```

Heres another example:

```auto
|metrics20-2018.03.30|11|r|STARTED|4696819|17.2gb|10.187.8.3|elasticsearch-data-hot-4|
|metrics20-2018.03.30|11|p|STARTED|4671390|6gb|10.187.9.3|elasticsearch-data-hot-1|

```

This is causing our disk to fill up on certain nodes far too fast and we have no idea why it is happening.

Any ideas?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kstoney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@kstoney](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kstoney)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 3:14pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238/2 "2018-03-30T15:14:12Z")

</div>

I've noticed a correlation that this is purely on replicas.  
This index is a 20 shard, 1 replica setup.

metrics20-2018.03.30  
size: 154Gi (535Gi)  
docs: 138,337,371 (269,919,578)

Notice how the total size (535) is 3.5x the primary size (154)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![kstoney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c68b51/32.png) [@kstoney](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/kstoney)\
**Post date:** [March 30, 2018, 4:10pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238/3 "2018-03-30T16:10:54Z")

</div>

We have had to reduce the replicas from 1 to 0 for now. You can see the impact that had on disk usage.

 ![29](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/0/b/0b1009a49dd406888b16d8d8c2d0cb1bcc48d705.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DavidTurner](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/davidturner/32/22453_2.png) [@DavidTurner](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/DavidTurner)\
**Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 12:31pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238/4 "2018-04-06T12:31:51Z")

</div>

If you set the number of replicas back to 1, are the rebuilt replicas also many times larger than the primary?

If you see this again could you provide the output of the following?

```
GET /<INDEX>/_stats?level=shards
```

---

<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:** [May 4, 2018, 12:32pm UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/strange-size-difference-in-shards-since-upgrading-to-6-2/126238/5 "2018-05-04T12:32:06Z")

</div>

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