diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/ceph/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/ceph/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst | 385 |
1 files changed, 385 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/ceph/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst b/src/ceph/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..52f98e8 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/ceph/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst @@ -0,0 +1,385 @@ +:orphan: + +================================= +Proposed Next Steps for ECBackend +================================= + +PARITY-DELTA-WRITE +------------------ + +RMW operations current require 4 network hops (2 round trips). In +principle, for some codes, we can reduce this to 3 by sending the +update to the replicas holding the data blocks and having them +compute a delta to forward onto the parity blocks. + +The primary reads the current values of the "W" blocks and then uses +the new values of the "W" blocks to compute parity-deltas for each of +the parity blocks. The W blocks and the parity delta-blocks are sent +to their respective shards. + +The choice of whether to use a read-modify-write or a +parity-delta-write is complex policy issue that is TBD in the details +and is likely to be heavily dependant on the computational costs +associated with a parity-delta vs. a regular parity-generation +operation. However, it is believed that the parity-delta scheme is +likely to be the preferred choice, when available. + +The internal interface to the erasure coding library plug-ins needs to +be extended to support the ability to query if parity-delta +computation is possible for a selected algorithm as well as an +interface to the actual parity-delta computation algorithm when +available. + +Stripe Cache +------------ + +It may be a good idea to extend the current ExtentCache usage to +cache some data past when the pinning operation releases it. +One application pattern that is important to optimize is the small +block sequential write operation (think of the journal of a journaling +file system or a database transaction log). Regardless of the chosen +redundancy algorithm, it is advantageous for the primary to +retain/buffer recently read/written portions of a stripe in order to +reduce network traffic. The dynamic contents of this cache may be used +in the determination of whether a read-modify-write or a +parity-delta-write is performed. The sizing of this cache is TBD, but +we should plan on allowing at least a few full stripes per active +client. Limiting the cache occupancy on a per-client basis will reduce +the noisy neighbor problem. + +Recovery and Rollback Details +============================= + +Implementing a Rollback-able Prepare Operation +---------------------------------------------- + +The prepare operation is implemented at each OSD through a simulation +of a versioning or copy-on-write capability for modifying a portion of +an object. + +When a prepare operation is performed, the new data is written into a +temporary object. The PG log for the +operation will contain a reference to the temporary object so that it +can be located for recovery purposes as well as a record of all of the +shards which are involved in the operation. + +In order to avoid fragmentation (and hence, future read performance), +creation of the temporary object needs special attention. The name of +the temporary object affects its location within the KV store. Right +now its unclear whether it's desirable for the name to locate near the +base object or whether a separate subset of keyspace should be used +for temporary objects. Sam believes that colocation with the base +object is preferred (he suggests using the generation counter of the +ghobject for temporaries). Whereas Allen believes that using a +separate subset of keyspace is desirable since these keys are +ephemeral and we don't want to actually colocate them with the base +object keys. Perhaps some modeling here can help resolve this +issue. The data of the temporary object wants to be located as close +to the data of the base object as possible. This may be best performed +by adding a new ObjectStore creation primitive that takes the base +object as an addtional parameter that is a hint to the allocator. + +Sam: I think that the short lived thing may be a red herring. We'll +be updating the donor and primary objects atomically, so it seems like +we'd want them adjacent in the key space, regardless of the donor's +lifecycle. + +The apply operation moves the data from the temporary object into the +correct position within the base object and deletes the associated +temporary object. This operation is done using a specialized +ObjectStore primitive. In the current ObjectStore interface, this can +be done using the clonerange function followed by a delete, but can be +done more efficiently with a specialized move primitive. +Implementation of the specialized primitive on FileStore can be done +by copying the data. Some file systems have extensions that might also +be able to implement this operation (like a defrag API that swaps +chunks between files). It is expected that NewStore will be able to +support this efficiently and natively (It has been noted that this +sequence requires that temporary object allocations, which tend to be +small, be efficiently converted into blocks for main objects and that +blocks that were formerly inside of main objects must be reusable with +minimal overhead) + +The prepare and apply operations can be separated arbitrarily in +time. If a read operation accesses an object that has been altered by +a prepare operation (but without a corresponding apply operation) it +must return the data after the prepare operation. This is done by +creating an in-memory database of objects which have had a prepare +operation without a corresponding apply operation. All read operations +must consult this in-memory data structure in order to get the correct +data. It should explicitly recognized that it is likely that there +will be multiple prepare operations against a single base object and +the code must handle this case correctly. This code is implemented as +a layer between ObjectStore and all existing readers. Annoyingly, +we'll want to trash this state when the interval changes, so the first +thing that needs to happen after activation is that the primary and +replicas apply up to last_update so that the empty cache will be +correct. + +During peering, it is now obvious that an unapplied prepare operation +can easily be rolled back simply by deleting the associated temporary +object and removing that entry from the in-memory data structure. + +Partial Application Peering/Recovery modifications +-------------------------------------------------- + +Some writes will be small enough to not require updating all of the +shards holding data blocks. For write amplification minization +reasons, it would be best to avoid writing to those shards at all, +and delay even sending the log entries until the next write which +actually hits that shard. + +The delaying (buffering) of the transmission of the prepare and apply +operations for witnessing OSDs creates new situations that peering +must handle. In particular the logic for determining the authoritative +last_update value (and hence the selection of the OSD which has the +authoritative log) must be modified to account for the valid but +missing (i.e., delayed/buffered) pglog entries to which the +authoritative OSD was only a witness to. + +Because a partial write might complete without persisting a log entry +on every replica, we have to do a bit more work to determine an +authoritative last_update. The constraint (as with a replicated PG) +is that last_update >= the most recent log entry for which a commit +was sent to the client (call this actual_last_update). Secondarily, +we want last_update to be as small as possible since any log entry +past actual_last_update (we do not apply a log entry until we have +sent the commit to the client) must be able to be rolled back. Thus, +the smaller a last_update we choose, the less recovery will need to +happen (we can always roll back, but rolling a replica forward may +require an object rebuild). Thus, we will set last_update to 1 before +the oldest log entry we can prove cannot have been committed. In +current master, this is simply the last_update of the shortest log +from that interval (because that log did not persist any entry past +that point -- a precondition for sending a commit to the client). For +this design, we must consider the possibility that any log is missing +at its head log entries in which it did not participate. Thus, we +must determine the most recent interval in which we went active +(essentially, this is what find_best_info currently does). We then +pull the log from each live osd from that interval back to the minimum +last_update among them. Then, we extend all logs from the +authoritative interval until each hits an entry in which it should +have participated, but did not record. The shortest of these extended +logs must therefore contain any log entry for which we sent a commit +to the client -- and the last entry gives us our last_update. + +Deep scrub support +------------------ + +The simple answer here is probably our best bet. EC pools can't use +the omap namespace at all right now. The simplest solution would be +to take a prefix of the omap space and pack N M byte L bit checksums +into each key/value. The prefixing seems like a sensible precaution +against eventually wanting to store something else in the omap space. +It seems like any write will need to read at least the blocks +containing the modified range. However, with a code able to compute +parity deltas, we may not need to read a whole stripe. Even without +that, we don't want to have to write to blocks not participating in +the write. Thus, each shard should store checksums only for itself. +It seems like you'd be able to store checksums for all shards on the +parity blocks, but there may not be distinguished parity blocks which +are modified on all writes (LRC or shec provide two examples). L +should probably have a fixed number of options (16, 32, 64?) and be +configurable per-pool at pool creation. N, M should be likewise be +configurable at pool creation with sensible defaults. + +We need to handle online upgrade. I think the right answer is that +the first overwrite to an object with an append only checksum +removes the append only checksum and writes in whatever stripe +checksums actually got written. The next deep scrub then writes +out the full checksum omap entries. + +RADOS Client Acknowledgement Generation Optimization +==================================================== + +Now that the recovery scheme is understood, we can discuss the +generation of of the RADOS operation acknowledgement (ACK) by the +primary ("sufficient" from above). It is NOT required that the primary +wait for all shards to complete their respective prepare +operations. Using our example where the RADOS operations writes only +"W" chunks of the stripe, the primary will generate and send W+M +prepare operations (possibly including a send-to-self). The primary +need only wait for enough shards to be written to ensure recovery of +the data, Thus after writing W + M chunks you can afford the lost of M +chunks. Hence the primary can generate the RADOS ACK after W+M-M => W +of those prepare operations are completed. + +Inconsistent object_info_t versions +=================================== + +A natural consequence of only writing the blocks which actually +changed is that we don't want to update the object_info_t of the +objects which didn't. I actually think it would pose a problem to do +so: pg ghobject namespaces are generally large, and unless the osd is +seeing a bunch of overwrites on a small set of objects, I'd expect +each write to be far enough apart in the backing ghobject_t->data +mapping to each constitute a random metadata update. Thus, we have to +accept that not every shard will have the current version in its +object_info_t. We can't even bound how old the version on a +particular shard will happen to be. In particular, the primary does +not necessarily have the current version. One could argue that the +parity shards would always have the current version, but not every +code necessarily has designated parity shards which see every write +(certainly LRC, iirc shec, and even with a more pedestrian code, it +might be desirable to rotate the shards based on object hash). Even +if you chose to designate a shard as witnessing all writes, the pg +might be degraded with that particular shard missing. This is a bit +tricky, currently reads and writes implicitely return the most recent +version of the object written. On reads, we'd have to read K shards +to answer that question. We can get around that by adding a "don't +tell me the current version" flag. Writes are more problematic: we +need an object_info from the most recent write in order to form the +new object_info and log_entry. + +A truly terrifying option would be to eliminate version and +prior_version entirely from the object_info_t. There are a few +specific purposes it serves: + +#. On OSD startup, we prime the missing set by scanning backwards + from last_update to last_complete comparing the stored object's + object_info_t to the version of most recent log entry. +#. During backfill, we compare versions between primary and target + to avoid some pushes. We use it elsewhere as well +#. While pushing and pulling objects, we verify the version. +#. We return it on reads and writes and allow the librados user to + assert it atomically on writesto allow the user to deal with write + races (used extensively by rbd). + +Case (3) isn't actually essential, just convenient. Oh well. (4) +is more annoying. Writes are easy since we know the version. Reads +are tricky because we may not need to read from all of the replicas. +Simplest solution is to add a flag to rados operations to just not +return the user version on read. We can also just not support the +user version assert on ec for now (I think? Only user is rgw bucket +indices iirc, and those will always be on replicated because they use +omap). + +We can avoid (1) by maintaining the missing set explicitely. It's +already possible for there to be a missing object without a +corresponding log entry (Consider the case where the most recent write +is to an object which has not been updated in weeks. If that write +becomes divergent, the written object needs to be marked missing based +on the prior_version which is not in the log.) THe PGLog already has +a way of handling those edge cases (see divergent_priors). We'd +simply expand that to contain the entire missing set and maintain it +atomically with the log and the objects. This isn't really an +unreasonable option, the addiitonal keys would be fewer than the +existing log keys + divergent_priors and aren't updated in the fast +write path anyway. + +The second case is a bit trickier. It's really an optimization for +the case where a pg became not in the acting set long enough for the +logs to no longer overlap but not long enough for the PG to have +healed and removed the old copy. Unfortunately, this describes the +case where a node was taken down for maintenance with noout set. It's +probably not acceptable to re-backfill the whole OSD in such a case, +so we need to be able to quickly determine whether a particular shard +is up to date given a valid acting set of other shards. + +Let ordinary writes which do not change the object size not touch the +object_info at all. That means that the object_info version won't +match the pg log entry version. Include in the pg_log_entry_t the +current object_info version as well as which shards participated (as +mentioned above). In addition to the object_info_t attr, record on +each shard s a vector recording for each other shard s' the most +recent write which spanned both s and s'. Operationally, we maintain +an attr on each shard containing that vector. A write touching S +updates the version stamp entry for each shard in S on each shard in +S's attribute (and leaves the rest alone). If we have a valid acting +set during backfill, we must have a witness of every write which +completed -- so taking the max of each entry over all of the acting +set shards must give us the current version for each shard. During +recovery, we set the attribute on the recovery target to that max +vector (Question: with LRC, we may not need to touch much of the +acting set to recover a particular shard -- can we just use the max of +the shards we used to recovery, or do we need to grab the version +vector from the rest of the acting set as well? I'm not sure, not a +big deal anyway, I think). + +The above lets us perform blind writes without knowing the current +object version (log entry version, that is) while still allowing us to +avoid backfilling up to date objects. The only catch is that our +backfill scans will can all replicas, not just the primary and the +backfill targets. + +It would be worth adding into scrub the ability to check the +consistency of the gathered version vectors -- probably by just +taking 3 random valid subsets and verifying that they generate +the same authoritative version vector. + +Implementation Strategy +======================= + +It goes without saying that it would be unwise to attempt to do all of +this in one massive PR. It's also not a good idea to merge code which +isn't being tested. To that end, it's worth thinking a bit about +which bits can be tested on their own (perhaps with a bit of temporary +scaffolding). + +We can implement the overwrite friendly checksumming scheme easily +enough with the current implementation. We'll want to enable it on a +per-pool basis (probably using a flag which we'll later repurpose for +actual overwrite support). We can enable it in some of the ec +thrashing tests in the suite. We can also add a simple test +validating the behavior of turning it on for an existing ec pool +(later, we'll want to be able to convert append-only ec pools to +overwrite ec pools, so that test will simply be expanded as we go). +The flag should be gated by the experimental feature flag since we +won't want to support this as a valid configuration -- testing only. +We need to upgrade append only ones in place during deep scrub. + +Similarly, we can implement the unstable extent cache with the current +implementation, it even lets us cut out the readable ack the replicas +send to the primary after the commit which lets it release the lock. +Same deal, implement, gate with experimental flag, add to some of the +automated tests. I don't really see a reason not to use the same flag +as above. + +We can certainly implement the move-range primitive with unit tests +before there are any users. Adding coverage to the existing +objectstore tests would suffice here. + +Explicit missing set can be implemented now, same deal as above -- +might as well even use the same feature bit. + +The TPC protocol outlined above can actually be implemented an append +only EC pool. Same deal as above, can even use the same feature bit. + +The RADOS flag to suppress the read op user version return can be +implemented immediately. Mostly just needs unit tests. + +The version vector problem is an interesting one. For append only EC +pools, it would be pointless since all writes increase the size and +therefore update the object_info. We could do it for replicated pools +though. It's a bit silly since all "shards" see all writes, but it +would still let us implement and partially test the augmented backfill +code as well as the extra pg log entry fields -- this depends on the +explicit pg log entry branch having already merged. It's not entirely +clear to me that this one is worth doing seperately. It's enough code +that I'd really prefer to get it done independently, but it's also a +fair amount of scaffolding that will be later discarded. + +PGLog entries need to be able to record the participants and log +comparison needs to be modified to extend logs with entries they +wouldn't have witnessed. This logic should be abstracted behind +PGLog so it can be unittested -- that would let us test it somewhat +before the actual ec overwrites code merges. + +Whatever needs to happen to the ec plugin interface can probably be +done independently of the rest of this (pending resolution of +questions below). + +The actual nuts and bolts of performing the ec overwrite it seems to +me can't be productively tested (and therefore implemented) until the +above are complete, so best to get all of the supporting code in +first. + +Open Questions +============== + +Is there a code we should be using that would let us compute a parity +delta without rereading and reencoding the full stripe? If so, is it +the kind of thing we need to design for now, or can it be reasonably +put off? + +What needs to happen to the EC plugin interface? |