Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering #53

Closed
dlambrig opened this issue Nov 28, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering #53

dlambrig opened this issue Nov 28, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

@dlambrig
Copy link

dlambrig commented Nov 28, 2016

Tiering currently promotes or demotes a single file at a time. The multithreaded code used in DHT rebalance is not used. This makes tier migration of files very slow.

This project will change the tiering migration code to use a thread pool, to move multiple files at a time. DHT multithreaded code shall be leveraged.

Draft description of implementation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10pvgU9uYINv0pXjGgIUNGATpoh93b4djExmyWG5Atn8/edit

@dlambrig dlambrig changed the title multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering cb:tier Dec 8, 2016
@dlambrig dlambrig changed the title multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering cb:tier multithreaded promotion/demotion in tiering Dec 8, 2016
@ShyamsundarR ShyamsundarR added this to the Release 3.10 (LTM) milestone Dec 12, 2016
@ShyamsundarR
Copy link
Contributor

@dlambrig the feature cannot make it to 3.10, but is still a valid feature to track for future releases, am I right?

Reopening the issue based on the above assumption, and removing the 3.10 release milestone from the same. It will still reside as a part of the tier backlog though.

@ShyamsundarR ShyamsundarR reopened this Dec 21, 2016
@ShyamsundarR ShyamsundarR removed this from the Release 3.10 (LTM) milestone Dec 21, 2016
@dlambrig
Copy link
Author

tier backlog is the right place to track it.

gluster-ant pushed a commit that referenced this issue Aug 20, 2018
…re.t

Problem:
In line #13 of the test case, it checks whether the file is present
on first 2 bricks or not. If it is not present on even one of the bricks
it will break the loop and checks for the dirty marking on the parent
on the 3rd brick and checks for file not present on the 1st and 2nd
bricks. The below scenario can happen in this case:
- File gets created on 1st and 3rd bricks
- In line #13 it sees file is not present on both 1st & 2nd bricks and
  breaks the loop
- In line #51 test fails because the file will be present on the 1st brick
- In line #53 test will fail because the file creation was not failed on
  quorum bricks and dirty marking will not be there on the parent on 3rd
  brick

Fix:
Don't break from the loop if file is present on either brick 1 or brick 2.

Change-Id: I918068165e4b9124c1de86cfb373801b5b432bd9
fixes: bz#1612054
Signed-off-by: karthik-us <ksubrahm@redhat.com>
amarts pushed a commit to amarts/glusterfs_fork that referenced this issue Sep 11, 2018
…re.t

Problem:
In line gluster#13 of the test case, it checks whether the file is present
on first 2 bricks or not. If it is not present on even one of the bricks
it will break the loop and checks for the dirty marking on the parent
on the 3rd brick and checks for file not present on the 1st and 2nd
bricks. The below scenario can happen in this case:
- File gets created on 1st and 3rd bricks
- In line gluster#13 it sees file is not present on both 1st & 2nd bricks and
  breaks the loop
- In line gluster#51 test fails because the file will be present on the 1st brick
- In line gluster#53 test will fail because the file creation was not failed on
  quorum bricks and dirty marking will not be there on the parent on 3rd
  brick

Fix:
Don't break from the loop if file is present on either brick 1 or brick 2.

Change-Id: I918068165e4b9124c1de86cfb373801b5b432bd9
fixes: bz#1612054
Signed-off-by: karthik-us <ksubrahm@redhat.com>
@amarts
Copy link
Member

amarts commented Oct 17, 2019

tier is removed from the build from glusterfs-6. If reopen if anyone is interested to work.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants