[Gluster-devel] autodelete in snapshots
Vijay Bellur
vbellur at redhat.com
Mon Jun 2 14:52:58 UTC 2014
On 04/23/2014 05:50 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
> On 04/20/2014 11:42 PM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
>> On 04/16/2014 11:39 AM, Avra Sengupta wrote:
>>> The whole purpose of introducing the soft-limit is, that at any point
>>> of time the number of
>>> snaps should not exceed the hard limit. If we trigger auto-delete on
>>> hitting hard-limit, then
>>> the purpose itself is lost, because at that point we would be taking a
>>> snap, making the limit
>>> hard-limit + 1, and then triggering auto-delete, which violates the
>>> sanctity of the hard-limit.
>>> Also what happens when we are at hard-limit + 1, and another snap is
>>> issued, while auto-delete
>>> is yet to process the first delete. At that point we end up at
>>> hard-limit + 1. Also what happens
>>> if for a particular snap the auto-delete fails.
>>>
>>> We should see the hard-limit, as something set by the admin keeping in
>>> mind the resource consumption
>>> and at no-point should we cross this limit, come what may. If we hit
>>> this limit, the create command
>>> should fail asking the user to delete snaps using the "snapshot
>>> delete" command.
>>>
>>> The two options Raghavendra mentioned are applicable for the
>>> soft-limit only, in which cases on
>>> hitting the soft-limit
>>>
>>> 1. Trigger auto-delete
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 2. Log a warning-message, for the user saying the number of snaps is
>>> exceeding the snap-limit and
>>> display the number of available snaps
>>>
>>> Now which of these should happen also depends on the user, because the
>>> auto-delete option
>>> is configurable.
>>>
>>> So if the auto-delete option is set as true, auto-delete should be
>>> triggered and the above message
>>> should also be logged.
>>>
>>> But if the option is set as false, only the message should be logged.
>>>
>>> This is the behaviour as designed. Adding Rahul, and Seema in the
>>> mail, to reflect upon the
>>> behaviour as well.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Avra
>>
>> This sounds correct. However we need to make sure that the usage or
>> documentation around this should be good enough , so that users
>> understand the each of the limits correctly.
>>
>
> It might be better to avoid the usage of the term "soft-limit".
> soft-limit as used in quota and other places generally has an alerting
> connotation. Something like "auto-deletion-limit" might be better.
>
I still see references to "soft-limit" and auto deletion seems to get
triggered upon reaching soft-limit.
Why is the ability to auto delete not configurable? It does seem pretty
nasty to go about deleting snapshots without obtaining explicit consent
from the user.
Cheers,
Vijay
More information about the Gluster-devel
mailing list