[Gluster-devel] dht mkdir preop check, afr and (non-)readable afr subvols

[Raghavendra G]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Xavier Hernandez <xhernandez at datalab.es>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 31/05/16 07:05, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote:
>
>> +gluster-devel, +Xavi
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The context is [1], where bricks do pre-operation checks before doing a
>> fop and proceed with fop only if pre-op check is successful.
>>
>> @Xavi,
>>
>> We need your inputs on behavior of EC subvolumes as well.
>>
>
> If I understand correctly, EC shouldn't have any problems here.
>
> EC sends the mkdir request to all subvolumes that are currently considered
> "good" and tries to combine the answers. Answers that match in return code,
> errno (if necessary) and xdata contents (except for some special xattrs
> that are ignored for combination purposes), are grouped.
>
> Then it takes the group with more members/answers. If that group has a
> minimum size of #bricks - redundancy, it is considered the good answer.
> Otherwise EIO is returned because bricks are in an inconsistent state.
>
> If there's any answer in another group, it's considered bad and gets
> marked so that self-heal will repair it using the good information from the
> majority of bricks.
>
> xdata is combined and returned even if return code is -1.
>
> Is that enough to cover the needed behavior ?
>

Thanks Xavi. That's sufficient for the feature in question. One of the main
cases I was interested in was what would be the behaviour if mkdir succeeds
on "bad" subvolume and fails on "good" subvolume. Since you never wind
mkdir to "bad" subvolume(s), this situation never arises.



>
> Xavi
>
>
>
>> [1] http://review.gluster.org/13885
>>
>> regards,
>> Raghavendra
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>> From: "Pranith Kumar Karampuri" <pkarampu at redhat.com>
>>> To: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
>>> Cc: "team-quine-afr" <team-quine-afr at redhat.com>, "rhs-zteam" <
>>> rhs-zteam at redhat.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:22:49 AM
>>> Subject: Re: dht mkdir preop check, afr and (non-)readable afr subvols
>>>
>>> I think you should start a discussion on gluster-devel so that Xavi gets
>>> a
>>> chance to respond on the mails as well.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa <
>>> rgowdapp at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also note that we've plans to extend this pre-op check to all dentry
>>>> operations which also depend parent layout. So, the discussion need to
>>>> cover all dentry operations like:
>>>>
>>>> 1. create
>>>> 2. mkdir
>>>> 3. rmdir
>>>> 4. mknod
>>>> 5. symlink
>>>> 6. unlink
>>>> 7. rename
>>>>
>>>> We also plan to have similar checks in lock codepath for directories too
>>>> (planning to use hashed-subvolume as lock-subvolume for directories).
>>>> So,
>>>> more fops :)
>>>> 8. lk (posix locks)
>>>> 9. inodelk
>>>> 10. entrylk
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Raghavendra
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> From: "Raghavendra Gowdappa" <rgowdapp at redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "team-quine-afr" <team-quine-afr at redhat.com>
>>>>> Cc: "rhs-zteam" <rhs-zteam at redhat.com>
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 10:15:04 AM
>>>>> Subject: dht mkdir preop check, afr and (non-)readable afr subvols
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have some queries related to the behavior of afr_mkdir with respect
>>>>> to
>>>>> readable subvols.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. While winding mkdir to subvols does afr check whether the subvolume
>>>>> is
>>>>> good/readable? Or does it wind to all subvols irrespective of whether a
>>>>> subvol is good/bad? In the latter case, what if
>>>>>    a. mkdir succeeds on non-readable subvolume
>>>>>    b. fails on readable subvolume
>>>>>
>>>>>   What is the result reported to higher layers in the above scenario?
>>>>> If
>>>>>   mkdir is failed, is it cleaned up on non-readable subvolume where it
>>>>>   failed?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am interested in this case as dht-preop check relies on layout xattrs
>>>>>
>>>> and I
>>>>
>>>>> assume layout xattrs in particular (and all xattrs in general) are
>>>>> guaranteed to be correct only on a readable subvolume of afr. So, in
>>>>>
>>>> essence
>>>>
>>>>> we shouldn't be winding down mkdir on non-readable subvols as whatever
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> decision brick makes as part of pre-op check is inherently flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Raghavendra
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Pranith
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>



-- 
Raghavendra G
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-devel/attachments/20160531/957293c7/attachment.html>