On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 10:04:43AM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > Hi Dave! Hi Martin! > >> However, that suffers from another headache in that the I/O can get > >> arbitrarily sliced and diced in units of 512 bytes. > > > > Right, but we don't need support that insane case. Indeed, if > > it wasn't already obvious, we _can't support it_ because the > > filesystem verifiers can't do partial verification. i.e. part of > > the verification is CRC validation of the whole bio, not to mention > > that filesystem structure fragments cannot be safely parsed, > > interpretted and/or verified without the whole structure first being > > read in. > > What I thought. There are some things I can verify by masking but it's > limited. > > What about journal entries? Would they be validated with 512-byte > granularity or in bundles thereof? Only a problem during recovery, but > potentially a case where we care deeply about trying another copy if it > exists. Journal writes are padded to the specified mkfs alignment (i.e. the "log stripe unit") and are checksummed individually, so they can be explicitly configured not to cross device boundaries (e.g 32kB stripe unit on 64k chunk size means exactly 2 journal writes to each chunk). I took this into account when I said "the filesystem can constrain the alignment problem entirely at mkfs time".... > What I'm asking is if we should have a block size argument for the > verification? Or would you want to submit bios capped to the size you > care about and let the block layer take care of coalescing? Not sure what you mean by "capped to the size you care about". The verifier attached to a bio will exactly match the size of the bio being issued. AFAICT, coalescing with other bios in the request queues should not affect how the completion of that bio is handled by things like the RAID layers... > Validation of units bigger than the logical block size is an area which > our older Oracle HARD technology handles gracefully but which T10 PI has > been unable to address. So this is an area of particular interest to me, > although it's somewhat orthogonal to Bob's retry plumbing. > > Another question for you wrt. retries: Once a copy has been identified > as bad and a good copy read from media, who does the rewrite? As far as I'm concerned, correcting bad copies is the responisbility of the layer that manages the copies. It has nothing to do with the filesystem. > Does the > filesystem send a new I/O (which would overwrite all copies) or does the > retry plumbing own the responsibility of writing the good bio to the bad > location? There is so many varied storage algorithms and recovery options (rewrite, partial rewrite, recalc parity/erasure codes and rewrite, full stripe rewrite, rebuild onto hot spare due to too many errors, etc) it doesn't make sense to only allow repair to be done by completely error context-free rewriting from a higher layer. The layer that owns the redundancy can make much better decisions aout repair And let's face it: we don't want to have to add complex IO retry logic to every single filesystem. > > IOWs, we need to look at this problem from a "whole stack" point of > > view, not just cry about how "bios are too flexible and so make this > > too hard!". The filesystem greatly constrains the alignment and > > slicing/dicing problem to the point where it should be non-existent, > > we have a clearly defined hard stop where verifier propagation > > terminates, and if all else fails we can still detect corruption at > > the filesystem level just like we do now. The worst thing that > > happens here is we give up the capability for automatic block device > > recovery and repair of damaged copies, which we can't do right now, > > so it's essentially status quo... > > Having gone down the path of the one-to-many relationship when I did the > original heterogeneous I/O topology attempt, it's pure hell. Also dealt > with similar conundrums for the integrity stuff. So I don't like the > breadcrumb approach. Perfect is the enemy of good and all that. > > And I am 100% in agreement on the careful alignment and not making > things complex for crazy use cases (although occasional straddling I/Os > are not as uncommon as we'd like to think). However, I do have concerns > about this particular feature when it comes to your status quo comment. In what way? This is only one layer of defense from the filesystem perspective. i.e. If the underlying device cannot verify or correct the bad metadata it found from another copy/rebuild, then we still have to fall back to the filesystem rebuilding the metadata. That's what all the online scrubbing and repair code we're working on in XFS does, and btrfs is already capable of doing this when CRC errors are detected. i.e. the post-IO metadata verifier detects the error, the online scrub and repair code then kicks in and rebuilds the bad metadata block from other information in the filesystem. What we are trying to do is avoid the scrub-and-repair stage in the filesystem (as it is costly!) by ensuring that the underlying storage has exhausted all redundancy and repair capabilities it has before we run the filesystem rebuild phase. Recovering a bad block from a RAID1/5/6 stripe is much, much faster than rebuilding a metadata block from other metadata references in the filesystem.... > In order for us to build highly reliable systems, we have to have a > better building block than "this redundancy retry feature works most of > the time". But that is actually good enough when you put a self-repairing filesystem on top of a block layer that can recover from redundant information /most of the time/. i.e. to build a reliable storage system, the filesystem *must* be able to tolerate storage failures because IO errors and hardware/media corruption can and do happen. > So to me it is imperative that we provide hard guarantees > once a particular configuration has been set up and stacked. And if the > retry guarantee is somehow invalidated, then we really need to let the > user know about it. If the storage fails (and it will) and the filesystem cannot recover the lost metadata, then it will let the user know and potentially shut down the filesystem to protect the rest of the filesystem from further damage. That is the current status quo, and the presence or absence of automatic block layer retry and repair does not change this at all. IOWs, I think you're still looking at the problem as a "block storage layers need to be perfect" problem when, in fact, we do not need that nor are we asking for it. We have redundancy, rebuild and reporting apabilities above the block storage layers (i.e. in filesystems like btrfs and XFS) these days which mean we can tolerate the lower layers of the storage being less than perfect. IOWs, the filesystem doesn't expect hard "always correct" guarantees from the storage layers - we always have to assume IO failures will occur because they do, even with T10 PI. Hence it makes no sense to for an automatic retry-and-recovery infrastructure for filesystems to require hard guarantees that the block device will always return good data. Automatic repair doesn't guarantee the storage is free from errors - it just provides a mechanism to detect errors and perform optimistic, best effort recovery at the lowest possible layer in the stack as early as possible. Cheers, dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
