On 09/02/2015 10:47 AM, Krutika Dhananjay wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Shyam" <srangana@xxxxxxxxxx>
*To: *"Aravinda" <avishwan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gluster Devel"
<gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent: *Wednesday, September 2, 2015 8:09:55 PM
*Subject: *Re: Gluster Sharding and Geo-replication
On 09/02/2015 03:12 AM, Aravinda wrote:
> Geo-replication and Sharding Team today discussed about the approach
> to make Sharding aware Geo-replication. Details are as below
>
> Participants: Aravinda, Kotresh, Krutika, Rahul Hinduja, Vijay Bellur
>
> - Both Master and Slave Volumes should be Sharded Volumes with same
> configurations.
If I am not mistaken, geo-rep supports replicating to a non-gluster
local FS at the slave end. Is this correct? If so, would this
limitation
not make that problematic?
When you state *same configuration*, I assume you mean the sharding
configuration, not the volume graph, right?
That is correct. The only requirement is for the slave to have shard
translator (for, someone needs to present aggregated view of the file to
the READers on the slave).
Also the shard-block-size needs to be kept same between master and
slave. Rest of the configuration (like the number of subvols of DHT/AFR)
can vary across master and slave.
Do we need to have the sharded block size the same? As I assume the file
carries an xattr that contains the size it is sharded with
(trusted.glusterfs.shard.block-size), so if this is synced across, it
would do. If this is true, what it would mean is that "a sharded volume
needs a shard supported slave to ge-rep to".
-Krutika
> - In Changelog record changes related to Sharded files also. Just
like
> any regular files.
> - Sharding should allow Geo-rep to list/read/write Sharding internal
> Xattrs if Client PID is gsyncd(-1)
> - Sharding should allow read/write of Sharded files(that is in
.shards
> directory) if Client PID is GSYNCD
> - Sharding should return actual file instead of returning the
> aggregated content when the Main file is requested(Client PID
> GSYNCD)
>
> For example, a file f1 is created with GFID G1.
>
> When the file grows it gets sharded into chunks(say 5 chunks).
>
> f1 G1
> .shards/G1.1 G2
> .shards/G1.2 G3
> .shards/G1.3 G4
> .shards/G1.4 G5
>
> In Changelog, this is recorded as 5 different files as below
>
> CREATE G1 f1
> DATA G1
> META G1
> CREATE G2 PGS/G1.1
> DATA G2
> META G1
> CREATE G3 PGS/G1.2
> DATA G3
> META G1
> CREATE G4 PGS/G1.3
> DATA G4
> META G1
> CREATE G5 PGS/G1.4
> DATA G5
> META G1
>
> Where PGS is GFID of .shards directory.
>
> Geo-rep will create these files independently in Slave Volume and
> syncs Xattrs of G1. Data can be read only when all the chunks are
> synced to Slave Volume. Data can be read partially if main/first file
> and some of the chunks synced to Slave.
>
> Please add if I missed anything. C & S Welcome.
>
> regards
> Aravinda
>
> On 08/11/2015 04:36 PM, Aravinda wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We are thinking different approaches to add support in
Geo-replication
>> for Sharded Gluster Volumes[1]
>>
>> *Approach 1: Geo-rep: Sync Full file*
>> - In Changelog only record main file details in the same brick
>> where it is created
>> - Record as DATA in Changelog whenever any addition/changes
to the
>> sharded file
>> - Geo-rep rsync will do checksum as a full file from mount and
>> syncs as new file
>> - Slave side sharding is managed by Slave Volume
>> *Approach 2: Geo-rep: Sync sharded file separately*
>> - Geo-rep rsync will do checksum for sharded files only
>> - Geo-rep syncs each sharded files independently as new files
>> - [UNKNOWN] Sync internal xattrs(file size and block count)
in the
>> main sharded file to Slave Volume to maintain the same state as
in Master.
>> - Sharding translator to allow file creation under .shards
dir for
>> gsyncd. that is Parent GFID is .shards directory
>> - If sharded files are modified during Geo-rep run may end up
stale
>> data in Slave.
>> - Files on Slave Volume may not be readable unless all sharded
>> files sync to Slave(Each bricks in Master independently sync
files to
>> slave)
>>
>> First approach looks more clean, but we have to analize the Rsync
>> checksum performance on big files(Sharded in backend, accessed
as one
>> big file from rsync)
>>
>> Let us know your thoughts. Thanks
>>
>> Ref:
>> [1]
>>
http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Features/sharding-xlator
>> --
>> regards
>> Aravinda
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gluster-devel mailing list
>> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
_______________________________________________
Gluster-devel mailing list
Gluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel
