w.r.t. (1) Except for "permanent" -- essentially yes. My central point is that by having the full tuple you decouple the actual algorithm from its persistent expression. In the example that you give, you have one representation of the final result. There are other possible final results (i.e., by RMWing some of the smaller chunks -- as you originally proposed). You even have the option of doing the RMWing/compaction in a background low-priority process (part of the scrub?). You may be right about the effect of (2), but maybe not. I agree that more discussion about checksums is useful. It's essential that BlueStore properly augment device-level integrity checks. Allen Samuels Software Architect, Emerging Storage Solutions 2880 Junction Avenue, Milpitas, CA 95134 T: +1 408 801 7030| M: +1 408 780 6416 allen.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: Igor Fedotov [mailto:ifedotov@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:19 AM To: Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Allen Samuels <Allen.Samuels@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: ceph-devel <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Adding compression support for bluestore. Allen, Sage thanks a lot for interesting input. May I have some clarification and highlight some caveats though? 1) Allen, are you suggesting to have permanent logical blocks layout established after the initial writing? Please find what I mean at the example below ( logical offset/size are provided only for the sake of simplicity). Imagine client has performed multiple writes that created following map <logical offset, logical size>: <0, 100> <100, 50> <150, 70> <230, 70> and an overwrite request <120,70> is coming. The question is if resulting mapping to be the same or should be updated as below: <0,100> <100, 20> //updated extent <120, 100> //new extent <220, 10> //updated extent <230, 70> 2) In fact "Application units" that write requests delivers to BlueStore are pretty( or even completely) distorted by Ceph internals (Caching infra, striping, EC). Thus there is a chance we are dealing with a broken picture and suggested modification brings no/minor benefit. 3) Sage - could you please elaborate the per-extent checksum use case - how are we planing to use that? Thanks, Igor. On 22.02.2016 15:25, Sage Weil wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Allen Samuels wrote: >> This is a good start to an architecture for performing compression. >> >> I am concerned that it's a bit too simple at the expense of >> potentially significant performance. In particular, I believe it's >> often inefficient to force compression to be performed in block sizes >> and alignments that may not match the application's usage. >> >> I think that extent mapping should be enhanced to include the full >> tuple: <Logical offset, Logical Size, Physical offset, Physical size, >> compression algo> > I agree. > >> With the full tuple, you can compress data in the natural units of >> the application (which is most likely the size of the write operation >> that you received) and on its natural alignment (which will eliminate >> a lot of expensive-and-hard-to-handle partial overwrites) rather than >> the proposal of a fixed size compression block on fixed boundaries. >> >> Using the application's natural block size for performing compression >> may allow you a greater choice of compression algorithms. For >> example, if you're doing 1MB object writes, then you might want to be >> using bzip-ish algorithms that have large compression windows rather >> than the 32-K limited zlib algorithm or the 64-k limited snappy. You >> wouldn't want to do that if all compression was limited to a fixed 64K window. >> >> With this extra information a number of interesting algorithm choices >> become available. For example, in the partial-overwrite case you can >> just delay recovering the partially overwritten data by having an >> extent that overlaps a previous extent. > Yep. > >> One objection to the increased extent tuple is that amount of >> space/memory it would consume. This need not be the case, the >> existing BlueStore architecture stores the extent map in a serialized >> format different from the in-memory format. It would be relatively >> simple to create multiple serialization formats that optimize for the >> typical cases of when the logical space is contiguous (i.e., logical >> offset is previous logical offset + logical size) and when there's no >> compression (logical size == physical size). Only the deserialized >> in-memory format of the extent table has the fully populated tuples. >> In fact this is a desirable optimization for the current bluestore >> regardless of whether this compression proposal is adopted or not. > Yeah. > > The other bit we should probably think about here is how to store > checksums. In the compressed extent case, a simple approach would be > to just add the checksum (either compressed, uncompressed, or both) to > the extent tuple, since the extent will generally need to be read in > its entirety anyway. For uncompressed extents, that's not the case, > and having an independent map of checksums over smaller block sizes > makes sense, but that doesn't play well with the variable > alignment/extent size approach. I kind of sucks to have multiple > formats here, but if we can hide it behind the in-memory > representation and/or interface (so that, e.g., each extent has a > checksum block size and a vector of checksums) we can optimize the encoding however we like without affecting other code. > > sage > >> >> Allen Samuels >> Software Architect, Fellow, Systems and Software Solutions >> >> 2880 Junction Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134 >> T: +1 408 801 7030| M: +1 408 780 6416 allen.samuels@xxxxxxxxxxx >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ceph-devel-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Igor Fedotov >> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:11 PM >> To: Haomai Wang <haomaiwang@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: ceph-devel <ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Subject: Re: Adding compression support for bluestore. >> >> Hi Haomai, >> Thanks for your comments. >> Please find my response inline. >> >> On 2/16/2016 5:06 AM, Haomai Wang wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Igor Fedotov <ifedotov@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> Here is my preliminary overview how one can add compression support >>>> allowing random reads/writes for bluestore. >>>> >>>> Preface: >>>> Bluestore keeps object content using a set of dispersed extents >>>> aligned by 64K (configurable param). It also permits gaps in object >>>> content i.e. it prevents storage space allocation for object data >>>> regions unaffected by user writes. >>>> A sort of following mapping is used for tracking stored object >>>> content disposition (actual current implementation may differ but >>>> representation below seems to be sufficient for our purposes): >>>> Extent Map >>>> { >>>> < logical offset 0 -> extent 0 'physical' offset, extent 0 size > ... >>>> < logical offset N -> extent N 'physical' offset, extent N size > } >>>> >>>> >>>> Compression support approach: >>>> The aim is to provide generic compression support allowing random >>>> object read/write. >>>> To do that compression engine to be placed (logically - actual >>>> implementation may be discussed later) on top of bluestore to "intercept" >>>> read-write requests and modify them as needed. >>>> The major idea is to split object content into fixed size logical >>>> blocks ( MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, e.g. 1Mb). Blocks are compressed >>>> independently. Due to compression each block can potentially occupy >>>> smaller store space comparing to their original size. Each block is >>>> addressed using original data offset ( AKA 'logical offset' above ). >>>> After compression is applied each block is written using the existing >>>> bluestore infra. In fact single original write request may affect >>>> multiple blocks thus it transforms into multiple sub-write requests. >>>> Block logical offset, compressed block data and compressed data length are the parameters for injected sub-write requests. >>>> As a result stored object content: >>>> a) Has gaps >>>> b) Uses less space if compression was beneficial enough. >>>> >>>> Overwrite request handling is pretty simple. Write request data is >>>> splitted into fully and partially overlapping blocks. Fully >>>> overlapping blocks are compressed and written to the store (given the >>>> extended write functionality described below). For partially >>>> overwlapping blocks ( no more than 2 of them >>>> - head and tail in general case) we need to retrieve already stored >>>> blocks, decompress them, merge the existing and received data into a >>>> block, compress it and save to the store using new size. >>>> The tricky thing for any written block is that it can be both longer >>>> and shorter than previously stored one. However it always has upper >>>> limit >>>> (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE) since we can omit compression and use original block >>>> if compression ratio is poor. Thus corresponding bluestore extent for >>>> this block is limited too and existing bluestore mapping doesn't >>>> suffer: offsets are permanent and are equal to originally ones provided by the caller. >>>> The only extension required for bluestore interface is to provide an >>>> ability to remove existing extents( specified by logical offset, >>>> size). In other words we need write request semantics extension ( >>>> rather by introducing an additional extended write method). Currently >>>> overwriting request can either increase allocated space or leave it >>>> unaffected only. And it can have arbitrary offset,size parameters >>>> pair. Extended one should be able to squeeze store space ( e.g. by >>>> removing existing extents for a block and allocating reduced set of >>>> new ones) as well. And extended write should be applied to a specific >>>> block only, i.e. logical offset to be aligned with block start offset >>>> and size limited to MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. It seems this is pretty simple to >>>> add - most of the functionality for extent append/removal if already present. >>>> >>>> To provide reading and (over)writing compression engine needs to >>>> track additional block mapping: >>>> Block Map >>>> { >>>> < logical offset 0 -> compression method, compressed block 0 size > >>>> ... >>>> < logical offset N -> compression method, compressed block N size > } >>>> Please note that despite the similarity with the original bluestore >>>> extent map the difference is in record granularity: 1Mb vs 64Kb. Thus >>>> each block mapping record might have multiple corresponding extent mapping records. >>>> >>>> Below is a sample of mappings transform for a pair of overwrites. >>>> 1) Original mapping ( 3 Mb were written before, compress ratio 2 for >>>> each >>>> block) >>>> Block Map >>>> { >>>> 0 -> zlib, 512Kb >>>> 1Mb -> zlib, 512Kb >>>> 2Mb -> zlib, 512Kb >>>> } >>>> Extent Map >>>> { >>>> 0 -> 0, 512Kb >>>> 1Mb -> 512Kb, 512Kb >>>> 2Mb -> 1Mb, 512Kb >>>> } >>>> 1.5Mb allocated [ 0, 1.5 Mb] range ) >>>> >>>> 1) Result mapping ( after overwriting 1Mb data at 512 Kb offset, >>>> compress ratio 1 for both affected blocks) Block Map { >>>> 0 -> none, 1Mb >>>> 1Mb -> none, 1Mb >>>> 2Mb -> zlib, 512Kb >>>> } >>>> Extent Map >>>> { >>>> 0 -> 1.5Mb, 1Mb >>>> 1Mb -> 2.5Mb, 1Mb >>>> 2Mb -> 1Mb, 512Kb >>>> } >>>> 2.5Mb allocated ( [1Mb, 3.5 Mb] range ) >>>> >>>> 2) Result mapping ( after (over)writing 3Mb data at 1Mb offset, >>>> compress ratio 4 for all affected blocks) Block Map { >>>> 0 -> none, 1Mb >>>> 1Mb -> zlib, 256Kb >>>> 2Mb -> zlib, 256Kb >>>> 3Mb -> zlib, 256Kb >>>> } >>>> Extent Map >>>> { >>>> 0 -> 1.5Mb, 1Mb >>>> 1Mb -> 0Mb, 256Kb >>>> 2Mb -> 0.25Mb, 256Kb >>>> 3Mb -> 0.5Mb, 256Kb >>>> } >>>> 1.75Mb allocated ( [0Mb-0.75Mb] [1.5 Mb, 2.5 Mb ) >>>> >>> Thanks for Igore! >>> >>> Maybe I'm missing something, is it compressed inline not offline? >> That's about inline compression. >>> If so, I guess we need to provide with more flexible controls to >>> upper, like explicate compression flag or compression unit. >> Yes I agree. We need a sort of control for compression - on per object or per pool basis... >> But at the overview above I was more concerned about algorithmic aspect i.e. how to implement random read/write handling for compressed objects. >> Compression management from the user side can be considered a bit later. >> >>>> Any comments/suggestions are highly appreciated. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Igor. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> Thanks, >> Igor >> -- >> 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 >> PLEASE NOTE: The information contained in this electronic mail message is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by telephone or e-mail (as shown above) immediately and destroy any and all copies of this message in your possession (whether hard copies or electronically stored copies). >> N?????r??y??????X??ǧv???){.n?????z?]z????ay? ʇڙ??j ??f???h????? ?w??? ???j:+v???w???????? ????zZ+???????j"????i ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z��u���ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
