TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node
20
1
Fork 27
Code Issues 104 Pull requests 13 Projects Releases 2 Activity Actions

Fix checking EC parent existence on Put object to shard #1548

Merged
fyrchik merged 3 commits from dstepanov-yadro/frostfs-node:fix/path_removed_ec into master 2024-12-11 07:26:34 +00:00
Conversation 0 Commits 3 Files changed 7 +2
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files
Showing only changes of commit 5b42ea4c82 - Show all commits

2
pkg/services/policer/ec.go
View file

@ -281,6 +281,8 @@ func (p *Policer) adjustECPlacement(ctx context.Context, objInfo objectcore.Info
} }
chunkIDs[ch.Index] = ecInfoChunkID chunkIDs[ch.Index] = ecInfoChunkID
} }
} else if client.IsErrObjectAlreadyRemoved(err) {
a-savchuk commented 2024-12-10 11:12:40 +00:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

I think I've suggested similar changes for REP policy handling (#1543), but #1543 (comment) was said to me.

@fyrchik Could you please comment?

I think I've suggested similar changes for `REP` policy handling (https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/issues/1543), but https://git.frostfs.info/TrueCloudLab/frostfs-node/issues/1543#issuecomment-60284 was said to me. @fyrchik Could you please comment?
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-12-10 11:37:59 +00:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

ok, fixed

ok, fixed
fyrchik commented 2024-12-10 12:26:32 +00:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

What exactly was fixed? Is seems you still introduce a new behaviour:
image

What exactly was fixed? Is seems you still introduce a new behaviour: ![image](/attachments/14b33afa-e25f-4fc4-b3b8-5f1deb352215)
image.png
52 KiB
fyrchik commented 2024-12-10 12:27:26 +00:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

Sorry, the behaviour is the same, why have this commit at all?

Sorry, the behaviour is the same, why have this commit at all?
dstepanov-yadro commented 2024-12-10 12:49:23 +00:00
Outdated
Review
Copy link

Technically this commit relates to policer, but others relate to engine.
If the actual question is why this change, then this change if required to not to perform PUT request as we know, that object already removed and PUT request will fail anyway.

Technically this commit relates to policer, but others relate to engine. If the actual question is why this change, then this change if required to not to perform PUT request as we know, that object already removed and PUT request will fail anyway.
restore = false
} else if !p.cfg.netmapKeys.IsLocalKey(n.PublicKey()) && uint32(idx) < objInfo.ECInfo.Total { } else if !p.cfg.netmapKeys.IsLocalKey(n.PublicKey()) && uint32(idx) < objInfo.ECInfo.Total {
p.log.Warn(ctx, logs.PolicerCouldNotGetObjectFromNodeMoving, zap.String("node", hex.EncodeToString(n.PublicKey())), zap.Stringer("object", parentAddress), zap.Error(err)) p.log.Warn(ctx, logs.PolicerCouldNotGetObjectFromNodeMoving, zap.String("node", hex.EncodeToString(n.PublicKey())), zap.Stringer("object", parentAddress), zap.Error(err))
p.replicator.HandleReplicationTask(ctx, replicator.Task{ p.replicator.HandleReplicationTask(ctx, replicator.Task{