On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 02:42:17PM -0700, Neha Ojha wrote: > > We were seeing at least two types of such "messy" transactions: > > > > 1) On rados writing a new objects, one of the first transaction > > operations is OP_TOUCH. It creates the object file, tries to split the > > directory, aborts and skips creating the object spill_out attribute > > due to this. > > > > 2) On rados deleting an object, one of the transactions operations is > > OP_COLL_MOVE_RENAME, wich creates a temporary link, which triggers the > > directory split and the error, the op is aborted in the middle leaving > > the original object file not removed. > > > > So it looks like a bug and could be improved, but the question is if > > the upsteam is still interested in improving the filestore in this > > area? Should I report it to the tracker? > > Please feel free to create a tracker for it. Though we are not > actively developing against filestore, if the fix for this issue isn't > too invasive, I don't see any issues in merging it. Thank you, Neha! Here it is: https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/50395 We would like to work on the fix and I am thinking how to approach it. I think it is not correct that the result of the directory splitting (partially related to operation) aborts a transaction operation in the middle with the error code from directory split. And then the transaction uses this error code to make a decision how to proceed with the entire transaction (expecting that the error code came from the operation itself). Options that I see: 1) Consider the failed directory split not critical to abort the operation, i.e. ignore the error and proceed. 2) Consider it critical and just abort the osd. 3) replace the error code returned by directory split with some special error code, so the upper layer (FileStore::_do_transaction) could make a propriate decision (abort the transaction?). 4) Combination of (1) and (2): depending on the returned code condider it either non-critical and ignore or critical and abort the osd. 5) Either (1) or (2) depending on a config option. I would vote for (1) or (4) but I would love to learn what other people think about the issue and how it could be approached. Also, it would be nice to know why it was considered that ENODATA could be ignored in the transaction. I suppose it is because it was expected that ENODATA could be returned by getxattr only, when the attribute does not exist, and it was not expected to affect the transaction result? -- Mykola Golub _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
