On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 14:04 -0500, Sage Weil wrote: > Hi Jeff! > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 1:21 PM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm taking a stab at converting ceph to use the netfs write helpers. > > One > > thing I'm seeing though is that the kclient takes great care to > > write > > back data to the OSDs in order of snap context age, such that an > > older > > snapc will get written back before a newer one. With the netfs > > helpers, > > that may not happen quite as naturally. We may end up with it trying > > to > > flush data for a newer snapc ahead of the older one. > > > > My question is: is that necessarily a problem? We'd be sending along > > the > > correct info from the capsnap for each snapc, which seems like it > > should > > be sufficient to ensure that the writes get applied correctly. If we > > were to send these out of order, what would break and how? > > > > > Writing back snapshotted data out of order would corrupt the snapshot > content. The OSD can only create clone objects (snapshotted data) > from the live/head/most recent version of the object it has, which > means that a newer write followed by an older one will apply the old > data to the newer object. Exactly how that shakes out depends on > where the writes are relative to object boundaries (the cloning on the > OSD is by object) and how the writes were ordered relative to the > snapshots, but in any case the end result will not be correct. > Got it, thanks. Also thanks to Greg for his response. > :( Hopefully that doesn't make the netfs transition unworkable! > No, it doesn't make the transition unworkable, but we'll need to implement something in the netfs layer to ensure that things get written back in the correct order. David and I are still discussing what to do, but it should be doable. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
