Re: ./os/ObjectStore.h: 598: FAILED assert(op->oid < om.size())

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



When I first looked at the append() function I started working on a branch 
that would avoid the need for it entirely.  ObjectStore already 
operates on a list of Transactions, and IIRC the appending is only needed 
for local operations, not for what is sent over the wire.  It was 
nontrivial because of various annoying reasons (pointer ownership, 
lifecycle, etc.) so I didn't get very far.

If this is going to be a significant amount of work to fix with the 
current approach it might make sense to bite the bullet and go down that 
path..?

sage

On Tue, 20 Jan 2015, Dong Yuan wrote:

> If we must keep the order of local_t and op_t, I think the current
> impl of append is not appropriate.
> 
> Maybe I must provide something like clone_append to avoid the modify
> of existing data in the op_buffer, so the msg should be happy with the
> new transaction format.
> 
> I will try this solution and give a patch as soon as possible.
> 
> On 20 January 2015 at 02:44, Samuel Just <sam.just@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We actually found another problem with this series as well.
> >
> > http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10534
> >
> > Looks like d427ca35404a30e1f428859c3274e030f2f83ef6 reversed the order
> > of localt (which contains the create_collection) and op_t (which
> > contains all of the operations on the object in the temp collection).
> > We need the operations in localt to precede the operations in op_t.
> > How do we do this?
> > -Sam
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Dong Yuan <yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Yes, I am working on it since last week.
> >>
> >> This seems the same problem which I fix in the ReplicatedPG. So I try
> >> to fix it following the same way which I did in the ReplicatedPG, but
> >> it break the make_check test_erasure_code.sh.
> >>
> >> Now I am working on the test case, but unfortunately I am not familiar
> >> with the impl of EC, so it will take me more time.
> >>
> >> On 19 January 2015 at 23:41, Sage Weil <sweil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This has come up a couple times in QA since we merged the fast transaction
> >>> code.  Can you take a look?
> >>>
> >>>         http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/10517
> >>>
> >>> Ping me if it will help to get access to the test cluster.  Haomai has
> >>> access, and you can get the logs via http (linked from pulpito.ceph.com),
> >>> but it is less convenient.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> sage
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dong Yuan
> >> Email:yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
> >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dong Yuan
> Email:yuandong1222@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux