Supposedly, on 2013-Apr-22, at 08.09 PDT(-0700), someone claiming to be Sage Weil scribed:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>> Supposedly, on 2013-Apr-22, at 01.10 PDT(-0700), someone claiming to be Loic Dachary scribed:
>>
>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>
>>> You wrote "A modified client/library could be used to store objects that should be sharded, vs "standard" ceph treatment. In this model, each shard would be written to a seperate PG, and each PG would we stored on exactly one OSD. " but there is no way for a client to enforce the fact that two objects are stored in separate PG.
>>
>> Poorly worded. The idea is that each shard becomes a seperate object, and the encoder/sharder would use CRUSH to identify the OSDs to hold the shards. However, the OSDs would treat the shard as an n=1 replication and just store locally.
>>
>> Actually, looking at this this morning, this is actually harder than the prefered alternative (i.e. grafting a encode/decode into the (e)OSD. It was meant to cover the alternative approaches. I didn't like this one, but it now appears to be more difficult, and non-deterministic of the placement.
>>
>> One question on CRUSH (it's been too long since I read the paper), if x is the same for two objects, and, using an n=3 returns R={OSD18,OSD45,OSD97}, if an object is handed to OSD45 that matches x, but has an n=1, would OSD45 store it, or would it forward it to OSD18 to store? If it would this idea is DOA. Also, if x is held invariant, but n changes, does the same R set get returned (truncated to n members)?
>
> It would go to osd18, the first item in the sequence that CRUSH generates.
That's what I thought - then it is a non-starter
>
> As Loic observes, not having control of placement from above the librados
> level makes this more or less a non-started. The only thing that might
> work at that layer is to set up ~5 or more pools, each with a distinct set
> of OSDs, and put each shard/fragment in a different pool. I don't think
> that is a particularly good approach.
Pretty much of a kludge - I would agree
>
> If we are going to do parity encoding (and I think we should!), I think we
> should fully integrate it into the OSD.
>
> The simplest approach:
>
> - we create a new PG type for 'parity' or 'erasure' or whatever (type
> fields already exist)
> - those PGs use the parity ('INDEP') crush mode so that placement is
> intelligent
> - all reads and writes go to the 'primary'
> - the primary does the shard encoding and distributes the write pieces to
> the other replicas
> - same for reads
Yup - that's basically what I was trying to outline for the single-tier model. I called them eOSD's.
>
> There will be a pile of patches to move code around between PG and
> ReplicatedPG, which will be annoying, but hopefully not too painful. The
> class structure and data types were set up with this in mind long ago.
>
> Several key challenges:
>
> - come up with a scheme for internal naming to keep shards distinct
> - safely rewriting a stripe when there is a partial overwrite. probably
> want to write new stripes to distinct new objects (cloning old data as
> needed) and clean up the old ones once enough copies are present.
> - recovery logic
Been giving this some thought - I'll try and get them into the blueprint. Is the blueprint, as it is, reasonable to include in the design summit, knowing that it will continue to evolve?
>
> sage
>
Christopher
>
>>
>> Thx
>> Christopher
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Am I missing something ?
>>>
>>> On 04/22/2013 09:23 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote:
>>>> Supposedly, on 2013-Apr-18, at 14.31 PDT(-0700), someone claiming to be Plaetinck, Dieter scribed:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:09:52 -0500
>>>>> Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> @Bryan: I did come across cleversafe. all the articles around it seemed promising,
>>>>> but unfortunately it seems everything related to the cleversafe open source project
>>>>> somehow vanished from the internet. (e.g. http://www.cleversafe.org/) quite weird...
>>>>>
>>>>> @Sage: interesting. I thought it would be more relatively simple if one assumes
>>>>> the restriction of immutable files. I'm not familiar with those ceph specifics you're mentioning.
>>>>> When building an erasure codes-based system, maybe there's ways to reuse existing ceph
>>>>> code and/or allow some integration with replication based objects, without aiming for full integration or
>>>>> full support of the rados api, based on some tradeoffs.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Josh, that sounds like an interesting approach. Too bad that page doesn't contain any information yet :)
>>>>
>>>> Greetings - it does now - see what you all think?
>>>>
>>>> Christopher
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dieter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ???
>>>> Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
>>>> Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
>>>> Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl
>>>
>>> --
>>> Lo?c Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
>>
>>
>> --
>> ???
>> Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
>> Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
>> Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl
--
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf
Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdlAttachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
