On 12/09/2015 11:44 AM, Pranith Kumar Karampuri wrote:
On 12/09/2015 06:37 AM, Vijay Bellur wrote:
On 12/08/2015 03:45 PM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
On December 8, 2015 at 12:53:04 PM, Ira Cooper (ira@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
Raghavendra Gowdappa writes:
I propose that we define a "compound op" that contains ops.
Within each op, there are fields that can be "inherited" from the
previous op, via use of a sentinel value.
Sentinel is -1, for all of these examples.
So:
LOOKUP (1, "foo") (Sets the gfid value to be picked up by
compounding, 1
is the root directory, as a gfid, by convention.)
OPEN(-1, O_RDWR) (Uses the gfid value, sets the glfd compound value.)
WRITE(-1, "foo", 3) (Uses the glfd compound value.)
CLOSE(-1) (Uses the glfd compound value)
So, basically, what the programming-language types would call futures
and promises. It’s a good and well studied concept, which is necessary
to solve the second-order problem of how to specify an argument in
sub-operation N+1 that’s not known until sub-operation N completes.
To be honest, some of the highly general approaches suggested here scare
me too. Wrapping up the arguments for one sub-operation in xdata for
another would get pretty hairy if we ever try to go beyond two
sub-operations and have to nest sub-operation #3’s args within
sub-operation #2’s xdata which is itself encoded within sub-operation
#1’s xdata. There’s also not much clarity about how to handle errors in
that model. Encoding N sub-operations’ arguments in a linear structure
as Shyam proposes seems a bit cleaner that way. If I were to continue
down that route I’d suggest just having start_compound and end-compound
fops, plus an extra field (or by-convention xdata key) that either the
client-side or server-side translator could use to build whatever
structure it wants and schedule sub-operations however it wants.
However, I’d be even more comfortable with an even simpler approach that
avoids the need to solve what the database folks (who have dealt with
complex transactions for years) would tell us is a really hard problem.
Instead of designing for every case we can imagine, let’s design for the
cases that we know would be useful for improving performance. Open plus
read/write plus close is an obvious one. Raghavendra mentions
create+inodelk as well. For each of those, we can easily define a
structure that contains the necessary fields, we don’t need a
client-side translator, and the server-side translator can take care of
“forwarding” results from one sub-operation to the next. We could even
use GF_FOP_IPC to prototype this. If we later find that the number of
“one-off” compound requests is growing too large, then at least we’ll
have some experience to guide our design of a more general alternative.
Right now, I think we’re trying to look further ahead than we can see
clearly.
Yes Agree. This makes implementation on the client side simpler as well.
So it is welcome.
Just updating the solution.
1) New RPCs are going to be implemented.
2) client stack will use these new fops.
3) On the server side we have server xlator implementing these new fops
to decode the RPC request then resolve_resume and
compound-op-receiver(Better name for this is welcome) which sends one op
after other and send compound fop response.
List of compound fops identified so far:
Swift/S3:
PUT: creat(), write()s, setxattr(), fsync(), close(), rename()
Dht:
mkdir + inodelk
Afr:
xattrop+writev, xattrop+unlock to begin with.
Could everyone who needs compound fops add to this list?
I see that Niels is back on 14th. Does anyone else know the list of
compound fops he has in mind?
From the discussions we had with Niels regarding the kerberos support
on GlusterFS, I think below are the set of compound fops which are required.
set_uid +
set_gid +
set_lkowner (or kerberos principal name) +
actual_fop
Also gfapi does lookup (first time/to refresh inode) before performing
actual fops most of the times. It may really help if we can club such fops -
LOOKUP + FOP (OPEN etc)
Coming to the design proposed, I agree with Shyam, Ira and Jeff's
thoughts. Defining different compound fops for each specific set of
operations and wrapping up those arguments in xdata seem rather complex
and difficult to maintain going further. Having being worked with NFS,
may I suggest why not we follow (or in similar lines) the approach
being taken by NFS protocol to define and implement compound procedures.
The basic structure of the NFS COMPOUND procedure is:
+-----+--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--
| tag | minorversion | numops | op + args | op + args | op + args |
+-----+--------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+--
and the reply's structure is:
+------------+-----+--------+-----------------------+--
|last status | tag | numres | status + op + results |
+------------+-----+--------+-----------------------+--
Each compound procedure will contain the number of operations followed
by the list of 'op_code+arguments_for_that_fop'
So on similar lines, we just need to define new RPC structure for
COMPOUND fops (something like below) and xdr encode/decode of each of
the ops based on the op number.
struct argop {
uint32_t op_num;
union argop switch (op_num) {
case <OPCODE>: <argument>;
...
}op_args;
};
struct COMPOUNDargs {
uint32_t version;
uint32_t numops;
argop argarray<>;
};
RESULT
union resop switch (opnum resop){
case <OPCODE>: <result>;
...
};
struct COMPOUND4res {
uint32_t status;
resop resarray<>;
};
The xlator which would like to club fops can define this new COMPOUND
fop with the list of operations. For eg., AFR can construct this
compound fop as
compound_fop (struct COMPOUNDargs c_args);
c_args.version =1
c_args.numops = 2
c_args.argarray[0].op_num=fxattr_op_num;
c_args.argarray[0].op_args = fxattr_op_args;
c_args.argarray[0].op_num=writev_op_num;
c_args.argarray[0].op_args = writev_op_args;
On the server-side , the new compound xlator on receiving this compound
fop can split the fops and execute one by one as already mentioned by you.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Soumya
Pranith.
Starting with a well defined set of operations for compounding has its
advantages. It would be easier to understand and maintain correctness
across the stack. Some of our translators perform transactions &
create/update internal metadata for certain fops. It would be easier
for such translators if the compound operations are well defined and
does not entail deep introspection of a generic representation to
ensure that the right behavior gets reflected at the end of a compound
operation.
-Vijay
_______________________________________________
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
