Help us improve the AWS re:Post Knowledge Center by sharing your feedback in a brief survey. Your input can influence how we create and update our content to better support your AWS journey.
Discrepancy in 'VolumeBytesUsed' Metric Between Original and Cloned DocumentDB Clusters
I am currently using AWS DocumentDB 5.0.
The 'VolumeBytesUsed' metric for my existing cluster is significantly high.
To test this, I cloned the existing cluster to create a new cluster.
However, there is a substantial difference in the 'VolumeBytesUsed' values between the original and the cloned clusters.
I understand that when a cluster is cloned, disk space might be cleaned up, reducing disk usage.
However, I am still concerned about the reliability of this metric.
Specifically, I expect the cloned cluster to have at least (0.16TB + 97.8GB) = 257GB of data.
However, the 'VolumeBytesUsed' metric shows only 600MB.
Could anyone provide some insight?
Photo1: 'VolumeBytesUsed' for the original cluster
Photo2: 'VolumeBytesUsed' for the cloned cluster
Photo3: Actual data size for the cloned cluster
Photo4: Actual data size for the cloned cluster
Thank you in advance!
- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
Please make sure that you don't fall into any of these cases.
- Compression: Cloning might result in more efficient data storage, reducing ‘VolumeBytesUsed’.
- Cleanup of Deleted Data: Cloning only copies live data, not data marked for deletion, which could lower ‘VolumeBytesUsed’ in the cloned cluster.
- Differences in Indexing: Variations in how indexes are stored could affect ‘VolumeBytesUsed’.
- Snapshot Creation Process: The snapshot creation process, used for cloning, might result in some data cleanup, lowering ‘VolumeBytesUsed’ in the cloned cluster.
Relevant content
- asked 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 4 months ago
