Re: rgw-multisite: do we need an atomic option for RGWAsyncPutSystemObj?

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

 




On 09/03/2018 05:02 AM, Xinying Song wrote:
Hi, cephers:

We have been suffering a problem of rgw-multisite.  The `radosgw-admin
sync status` sometimes show data shards are behind to peers. If no
more log entries are added to the corresponding shard of peer zone,
i.e. no new writes, sync marker of this shard is stuck on that old
marker and no proceed. Restart rgw daemon can resolve this warning.

RGW log shows syncmarker in incremental_sync() function has been
updated to peer's newest marker. Gdb shows pending and finish_markers
variables of marker_tracker are empty. (i forget to see syncmarker
variable...) .

I guess this problem is caused by the non-atomic marker update. Since
update marker is handled by an RGWAsyncPutSystemObj op, those ops may
be dis-ordered when delivered to rados. Maybe we should add an id_tag
attr to ensure this op is atomic.

This problem is not easy to reproduce in testing enviroment, so I
prefer to ask you guys for some advice first, in case I'm in the wrong
way.

Thanks.

I think Yehuda saw this while testing the cloud sync work, and added a RGWLastCallerWinsCR to guarantee the ordering of marker updates in commit 1034a68fd12687ac81e6afc4718dbc8045648034. Does your branch include that commit, or is it based on luminous? We won't be backporting cloud sync as a feature, but we should probably take that one commit - I opened a ticket for this backport at http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/35539.

Thanks,
Casey



[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