On 02/04/2016 12:58 AM, Raghavendra Gowdappa wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vijay Bellur" <vbel...@redhat.com>
To: "Shyamsundar Ranganathan" <srang...@redhat.com>, "Raghavendra Gowdappa"
<rgowd...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Gluster Devel" <gluster-devel@gluster.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 9:55:04 AM
Subject: Non-blocking lock for renames
DHT developers,
We introduced a non-blocking lock prior to a rename operation in dht and
fail the rename if the lock acquisition is not successful with 3.6. I
ran into an user in IRC yesterday who is affected by this behavior change:
"We're seeing a behavior in Gluster 3.7.x that we did not see in 3.4.x
and we're not sure how to fix it. When multiple processes are attempting
to rename a file to the same destination at once, we're now seeing
"Device or resource busy" and "Stale file handle" errors. Here's the
command to replicate it: cd /mnt/glustermount; while true; do
FILE=$RANDOM; touch $FILE; mv $FILE file-fv; done. The above command
would be ran on two or three servers within the same gluster cluster. In
the output, one would always be sucessfull in the rename, while the 2
other ones would fail with the above error."
The use case for concurrent renames was described as:
"we generate files and push them to the gluster cluster. Some are
generated multiple times and end up being pushed to the cluster at the
same time by different data generators; resulting in the 'rename
collision'. We use also the cluster.extra-hash-regex to make sure the
data is written in place. And this does the rename."
Is a non-blocking lock essential? Can we not use a blocking lock instead
of a non-blocking lock or fallback to a blocking lock if the original
non-blocking lock acquisition fails?
This lock synchronizes:
1. rename from application with file migration from rebalance process [1].
2. multiple renames from application on same file.
I think lock is still required for 1. However, since migration can potentially
take large time, we chose a non-blocking lock to make sure application is not
blocked for longer period.
Since rebalance involves reduced performance and if performance/latency
is the only reason why we have non-blocking locks, I would prefer that
we block a rename during rebalance and preserve application continuity.
The case 2 is what causing the issue mentioned in this thread. We did see some
files being removed with parallel renames on the same file. But, by the time we
had identified that its a bug in 'mv' (mv issues an unlink on src if src and
dst happens to be hardlinks [2]. But test for hardlink check and unlink are not
atomic. Dht breaks rename into a series of links and unlinks), we had
introduced synchronizing b/w renames. So, we have two options:
1. Use different domains for use cases 1 and 2 above. With different domains,
use-case 2 above can be changed to use blocking locks. It might not be
advisable to use blocking locks for use-case 1.
2. Since we identified the issue is with mv (I couldn't find another bug we
filed on mv, but [2] is close to it), probably we don't need locking in 2 at
all.
Suggestions?
I would still preserve locking for 2. as the mv fixes are unlikely to
hit all releases of all distributions. If we change the rename lock to
be blocking, I feel that we would be covering both 1. and 2. while
preserving application continuity.
Regards,
Vijay
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@gluster.org
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
