5070869ac0
We should never assign multiple replicas of the same partition to the
same device - our on-disk layout can only support a single replica of a
given part on a single device. We should not do this, so we validate
against it and raise a loud warning if this terrible state is ever
observed after a rebalance.
Unfortunately currently there's a couple not necessarily uncommon
scenarios which will trigger this observed state today:
1. If we have less devices than replicas
2. If a server or zones aggregate device weight make it the most
appropriate candidate for multiple replicas and you're a bit unlucky
Fixing #1 would be easy, we should just not allow that state anymore.
Really we never did - if you have a 3 replica ring with one device - you
have one replica. Everything that iter_nodes'd would de-dupe. We
should just be insisting that you explicitly acknowledge your replica
count with set_replicas.
I have been lost in the abyss for days searching for a general solutions
to #2. I'm sure it exists, but I will not have wrestled it to
submission by RC1. In the meantime we can eliminate a great deal of the
luck required simply by refusing to place more than one replica of a
part on a device in assign_parts.
The meat of the change is a small update to the .validate method in
RingBuilder. It basically unrolls a pre-existing (part, replica) loop
so that all the replicas of the part come out in order so that we can
build up the set of dev_id's for which all the replicas of a given part
are assigned part-by-part.
If we observe any duplicates - we raise a warning.
To clean the cobwebs out of the rest of the corner cases we're going to
delay get_required_overload from kicking in until we achive dispersion,
and a small check was added when selecting a device subtier to validate
if it's already being used - picking any other device in the tier works
out much better. If no other devices are available in the tier - we
raise a warning. A more elegant or optimized solution may exist.
Many unittests did not meet the criteria #1, but the fix was straight
forward after being identified by the pigeonhole check.
However, many more tests were affected by #2 - but again the fix came to
be simply adding more devices. The fantasy that all failure domains
contain at least replica count devices is prevalent in both our ring
placement algorithm and it's tests. These tests were trying to
demonstrate some complex characteristics of our ring placement algorithm
and I believe we just got a bit too carried away trying to find the
simplest possible example to demonstrate the desirable trait. I think
a better example looks more like a real ring - with many devices in each
server and many servers in each zone - I think more devices makes the
tests better. As much as possible I've tried to maintain the original
intent of the tests - when adding devices I've either spread the weight
out amongst them or added proportional weights to the other tiers.
I added an example straw man test to validate that three devices with
different weights in three different zones won't blow up. Once we can
do that without raising warnings and assigning duplicate device part
replicas - we can add more. And more importantly change the warnings to
errors - because we would much prefer to not do that #$%^ anymore.
Co-Authored-By: Kota Tsuyuzaki <tsuyuzaki.kota@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Related-Bug: #1452431
Change-Id: I592d5b611188670ae842fe3d030aa3b340ac36f9
|
||
|---|---|---|
| bin | ||
| doc | ||
| etc | ||
| examples | ||
| swift | ||
| test | ||
| .coveragerc | ||
| .functests | ||
| .gitignore | ||
| .gitreview | ||
| .mailmap | ||
| .probetests | ||
| .unittests | ||
| AUTHORS | ||
| babel.cfg | ||
| bandit.yaml | ||
| CHANGELOG | ||
| CONTRIBUTING.md | ||
| LICENSE | ||
| MANIFEST.in | ||
| README.md | ||
| requirements.txt | ||
| setup.cfg | ||
| setup.py | ||
| test-requirements.txt | ||
| tox.ini | ||
Swift
A distributed object storage system designed to scale from a single machine to thousands of servers. Swift is optimized for multi-tenancy and high concurrency. Swift is ideal for backups, web and mobile content, and any other unstructured data that can grow without bound.
Swift provides a simple, REST-based API fully documented at http://docs.openstack.org/.
Swift was originally developed as the basis for Rackspace's Cloud Files and was open-sourced in 2010 as part of the OpenStack project. It has since grown to include contributions from many companies and has spawned a thriving ecosystem of 3rd party tools. Swift's contributors are listed in the AUTHORS file.
Docs
To build documentation install sphinx (pip install sphinx), run
python setup.py build_sphinx, and then browse to /doc/build/html/index.html.
These docs are auto-generated after every commit and available online at
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/.
For Developers
The best place to get started is the "SAIO - Swift All In One". This document will walk you through setting up a development cluster of Swift in a VM. The SAIO environment is ideal for running small-scale tests against swift and trying out new features and bug fixes.
You can run unit tests with .unittests and functional tests with
.functests.
If you would like to start contributing, check out these notes to help you get started.
Code Organization
- bin/: Executable scripts that are the processes run by the deployer
- doc/: Documentation
- etc/: Sample config files
- swift/: Core code
- account/: account server
- common/: code shared by different modules
- middleware/: "standard", officially-supported middleware
- ring/: code implementing Swift's ring
- container/: container server
- obj/: object server
- proxy/: proxy server
- test/: Unit and functional tests
Data Flow
Swift is a WSGI application and uses eventlet's WSGI server. After the
processes are running, the entry point for new requests is the Application
class in swift/proxy/server.py. From there, a controller is chosen, and the
request is processed. The proxy may choose to forward the request to a back-
end server. For example, the entry point for requests to the object server is
the ObjectController class in swift/obj/server.py.
For Deployers
Deployer docs are also available at http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/. A good starting point is at http://docs.openstack.org/developer/swift/deployment_guide.html
You can run functional tests against a swift cluster with .functests. These
functional tests require /etc/swift/test.conf to run. A sample config file
can be found in this source tree in test/sample.conf.
For Client Apps
For client applications, official Python language bindings are provided at http://github.com/openstack/python-swiftclient.
Complete API documentation at http://docs.openstack.org/api/openstack-object-storage/1.0/content/
For more information come hang out in #openstack-swift on freenode.
Thanks,
The Swift Development Team