TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node
21
1
Fork 27
Code Issues 108 Pull requests 3 Projects Releases 1 Activity Actions

node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only #1350

Merged
acid-ant merged 1 commit from acid-ant/frostfs-node:feat/evac-skip-rep-one into master 2024-09-30 06:34:32 +00:00
Conversation 1 Commits 1 Files changed 9 +309 -6
acid-ant commented 2024-09-03 12:48:27 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Signed-off-by: Anton Nikiforov an.nikiforov@yadro.com

Signed-off-by: Anton Nikiforov <an.nikiforov@yadro.com>
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 26a007a017 to d64712f25a 2024-09-03 12:50:41 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from d64712f25a to 99441bf077 2024-09-03 13:43:59 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 99441bf077 to 0574590325 2024-09-04 13:40:25 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 0574590325 to 37ceddedc4 2024-09-05 13:33:42 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 37ceddedc4 to aa6083f90c 2024-09-05 13:46:14 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from aa6083f90c to a6986dfcf3 2024-09-06 06:56:27 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant changed title from WIP: node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only to node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only 2024-09-06 07:01:27 +00:00
acid-ant requested review from storage-core-committers 2024-09-06 07:01:37 +00:00
acid-ant requested review from storage-core-developers 2024-09-06 07:01:38 +00:00
aarifullin reviewed 2024-09-06 07:37:29 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/evacuate.go Outdated
@ -654,3 +656,3 @@
}
addr := toEvacuate[i].Address
if prm.RepOneOnly {
aarifullin commented 2024-09-06 07:37:29 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Could you clarify, please, what a problem does this PR solve? Is there a specific case that requires to evacuate only REP 1 containers? May it be that we'll need to evacuate REP 2, REP 3 etc. only?

Could you clarify, please, what a problem does this PR solve? Is there a specific case that requires to evacuate only `REP 1` containers? May it be that we'll need to evacuate `REP 2`, `REP 3` etc. only?
acid-ant commented 2024-09-06 11:30:20 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Just to do it quicker. It is not a recommended way, but may be helpful in emergency situation, when disk is going to die.

Just to do it quicker. It is not a recommended way, but may be helpful in emergency situation, when disk is going to die.
👍 1
aarifullin marked this conversation as resolved
dstepanov-yadro requested changes 2024-09-06 10:54:56 +00:00
Dismissed
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/evacuate.go Outdated
@ -706,0 +720,4 @@
return false, err
}
p := c.Value.PlacementPolicy()
for i := range p.NumberOfReplicas() {
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-09-06 10:52:51 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Looks like REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2 will defined as repOne.

Looks like `REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2` will defined as repOne.
acid-ant commented 2024-09-06 11:40:22 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Right, and I think that condition should be strong and simple. In other case, we need to check if current node should store REP 1 or not. Should we do that check instead of the currently implemented?

Right, and I think that condition should be strong and simple. In other case, we need to check if current node should store `REP 1` or not. Should we do that check instead of the currently implemented?
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-09-06 12:41:38 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I don't know. But I think there is no difference between REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2 and REP 2 SELECT 2 FROM X policies, as both of then require 2 object instances.

I don't know. But I think there is no difference between `REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2` and `REP 2 SELECT 2 FROM X` policies, as both of then require 2 object instances.
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-09-27 07:03:33 +00:00
Member
Copy link

I was wrong. REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2 policy may result in both copies being stored on the same node (without UNIQUE).

I was wrong. `REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X1 REP 1 SELECT 1 FROM X2` policy may result in both copies being stored on the same node (without `UNIQUE`).
acid-ant commented 2024-09-27 12:40:33 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Updated, please review. Also added fix for tests.

Updated, please review. Also added fix for tests.
dstepanov-yadro marked this conversation as resolved
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from a6986dfcf3 to e281d31fbc 2024-09-09 08:57:04 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant changed title from node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only to WIP: node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only 2024-09-10 11:20:31 +00:00
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from e281d31fbc to 69c75a660b 2024-09-18 12:04:28 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 69c75a660b to 94e8629888 2024-09-18 12:06:01 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 94e8629888 to 763a7cef1c 2024-09-18 15:04:20 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 763a7cef1c to bcc0fed99c 2024-09-22 18:19:52 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 2218e42a10 to 417fa6d4cb 2024-09-24 05:39:24 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 417fa6d4cb to fb3d0e23eb 2024-09-24 12:08:35 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from fb3d0e23eb to c2a5a987ee 2024-09-24 12:10:16 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from c2a5a987ee to b76a7f125a 2024-09-24 14:55:15 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from b76a7f125a to 9fea4f65b2 2024-09-24 14:55:49 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant changed title from WIP: node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only to node: Add ability to evacuate objects from REP 1 only 2024-09-24 15:20:40 +00:00
acid-ant requested review from dstepanov-yadro 2024-09-24 15:20:50 +00:00
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 9fea4f65b2 to 3ec9900790 2024-09-25 07:49:19 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin approved these changes 2024-09-25 09:55:44 +00:00
Dismissed
aarifullin reviewed 2024-09-25 10:08:37 +00:00
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/evacuate.go Outdated
@ -784,0 +804,4 @@
return false, err
}
p := c.Value.PlacementPolicy()
for i := range p.NumberOfReplicas() {
aarifullin commented 2024-09-25 10:08:37 +00:00
Member
Copy link

You'd had already the discussion with @dstepanov-yadro.
I believe your PR solves the problem for evacuation of objects that have single instance across all nodes. But if the placement policy has a few vectors (REP 1 ... REP 1) it seems like it has replicated copy. Could you explain, then, why do you NOT check if p.NumberOfReplicas() == 1?

You'd had already the [discussion](https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/pulls/1350#issuecomment-50772) with @dstepanov-yadro. I believe your PR solves the problem for evacuation of objects that have single instance across all nodes. But if the placement policy has a few vectors (`REP 1 ... REP 1`) it seems like it has replicated copy. Could you explain, then, why do you NOT check if `p.NumberOfReplicas() == 1`?
acid-ant commented 2024-09-26 11:48:05 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

I have only one argument for this - network connectivity between nodes for two REP 1 may be bad. I see that it is not strong and because you don't see any problems I'll add this check.

I have only one argument for this - network connectivity between nodes for two `REP 1` may be bad. I see that it is not strong and because you don't see any problems I'll add this check.
👍 1
aarifullin marked this conversation as resolved
dstepanov-yadro requested changes 2024-09-25 12:11:27 +00:00
Dismissed
pkg/local_object_storage/engine/evacuate.go Outdated
@ -781,6 +798,20 @@ func (e *StorageEngine) evacuateObject(ctx context.Context, shardID string, objI
return nil
}
func (e *StorageEngine) isNotRepOne(cid cid.ID) (bool, error) {
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-09-25 12:10:00 +00:00
Member
Copy link

Looks like the case with deleted container is missing. It could happen that there are object from already deleted container.

Also should check moving to other node in case of deleted container.

Looks like the case with deleted container is missing. It could happen that there are object from already deleted container. Also should check moving to other node in case of deleted container.
👍 1
acid-ant commented 2024-09-26 11:23:10 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Now all objects are skipped for evacuation in case when container already removed.

Now all objects are skipped for evacuation in case when container already removed.
dstepanov-yadro marked this conversation as resolved
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 517d9bdbbe to fe2dda1caa 2024-09-26 11:20:15 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant dismissed aarifullin's review 2024-09-26 11:20:15 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from fe2dda1caa to a5b83d3ba8 2024-09-26 11:20:42 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant commented 2024-09-26 11:21:19 +00:00
Author
Member
Copy link

Added check for container existence.

Added check for container existence.
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from a5b83d3ba8 to 318ac167ba 2024-09-26 11:54:13 +00:00 Compare
aarifullin approved these changes 2024-09-26 14:59:08 +00:00
Dismissed
acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 318ac167ba to 0230e37bda 2024-09-27 12:39:47 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant dismissed aarifullin's review 2024-09-27 12:39:47 +00:00
Reason:

New commits pushed, approval review dismissed automatically according to repository settings

acid-ant force-pushed feat/evac-skip-rep-one from 0230e37bda to d0ed29b3c7 2024-09-27 12:41:52 +00:00 Compare
acid-ant requested review from dstepanov-yadro 2024-09-27 13:40:30 +00:00
dstepanov-yadro approved these changes 2024-09-27 14:43:26 +00:00
aarifullin approved these changes 2024-09-30 06:31:59 +00:00
acid-ant merged commit d0ed29b3c7 into master 2024-09-30 06:34:32 +00:00
acid-ant deleted branch feat/evac-skip-rep-one 2024-09-30 06:34:34 +00:00
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
dstepanov-yadro
aarifullin
Labels
Clear labels   
P0

Highest

  
P1

High

  
P2

Medium

  
P3

Low

  
badger

Badger DB related issues

  
frostfs-adm

   
frostfs-cli

   
frostfs-ir

   
frostfs-lens

   
frostfs-node

   
good first issue

Good for newcomers

  
triage
  
Infrastructure

Infrastructure, Automation, CI/CD or DevOps related stuff

  
blocked

The issue or PR is blocked by something

  
bug

Something is not working

  
config

Configuration format update or breaking change

  
discussion

Talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas

  
documentation

Documentation related

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
enhancement

New feature

  
go

Language features adoption

  
help wanted

Extra attention is needed

  
internal

   
invalid

Something is wrong

  
kludge

This is a kludge and we know it

  
observability

Related to metrics, tracing and logs

  
perfomance

Perfomance related

  
question

More information is needed

  
refactoring

Refactoring

  
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
P0
P1
P2
P3
badger
frostfs-adm
frostfs-cli
frostfs-ir
frostfs-lens
frostfs-node
good first issue
triage
Infrastructure
blocked
bug
config
discussion
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
go
help wanted
internal
invalid
kludge
observability
perfomance
question
refactoring
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node#1350
No description provided.
Delete branch "acid-ant/frostfs-node:feat/evac-skip-rep-one"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?