a1696a8 introduced some logic which in some situations prevented big objects
to be persisted in FSTree. In this commit a refactoring is done with the
goal of simplifying the code and also checking #866 issue.
1. Split a monstrous function into multiple simple ones: memory objects
can only be small and for writing through the cache we can do a dispatch
in `Put` itself.
2. Determine objects to be put in database before the actual update
as setting up a transaction has non-zero overhead.
Signed-off-by: Evgenii Stratonikov <evgeniy@nspcc.ru>
There is a need to limit disk space used by write-cache. It is almost
impossible to calculate the value exactly. It is proposed to estimate the
size of the cache by the number of objects stored in it.
Track amounts of objects saved in DB and FSTree separately. To do this,
`ObjectCounters` interface is defined. It is generalized to a store of
numbers that can be made persistent (new option `WithObjectCounters`). By
default DB number is calculated as key number in default bucket, and FS
number is set same to DB since it is currently hard to read the actual value
from `FSTree` instance. Each PUT/DELETE operation to DB or FS
increases/decreases corresponding counter. Before each PUT op an overflow
check is performed with the following formula for evaluating the occupied
space: `NumDB * MaxDBSize + NumFS * MaxFSSize`. If next PUT can cause
write-cache overflow, object is written to the main storage.
By default maximum write-cache size is set to 1GB.
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@nspcc.ru>
Shard should try to read object headers from write-cache if it is enabled.
Extend `writecache.Cache` interface with `Head` method. Call the method in
`Shard.Head` if `Shard.hasWriteCache` returns true.
Signed-off-by: Leonard Lyubich <leonard@nspcc.ru>
