Details

    • Technical task
    • Resolution: Won't Fix
    • Major
    • None
    • Lustre 2.5.0
    • 10389

    Description

      In current implementation, a catalog llog can only have ~4G entries in its lifetime which means HSM can only handle ~4G requests at most.

      We have to improve catalog. It seems reasonable for me to roll catalog index back when it reaches maximum, assuming that it's impossible to have ~4G entries on the same time.

      Attachments

        Activity

          [LU-3932] HSM can only handle ~4G requests at most

          It is worth noting that this only affects the case of the MDS crashes or is shut down while the first and last ChangeLog catalog llogs are straddling the start of the catalog. That would return ChangeLog entries in a slightly wrong order. That is not a problem for HSM, but may be for lustre-rsync and similar.

          adilger Andreas Dilger added a comment - It is worth noting that this only affects the case of the MDS crashes or is shut down while the first and last ChangeLog catalog llogs are straddling the start of the catalog. That would return ChangeLog entries in a slightly wrong order. That is not a problem for HSM, but may be for lustre-rsync and similar.

          Andreas says that the catalog should store the catalog index for the first (or last) index that is used. When processing the ChangeLog, it should start at the first (or one after the last) catalog index so that the individual llog files are processed in order.

          jay Jinshan Xiong (Inactive) added a comment - Andreas says that the catalog should store the catalog index for the first (or last) index that is used. When processing the ChangeLog, it should start at the first (or one after the last) catalog index so that the individual llog files are processed in order.

          After speaking to Jinshan, this will not be fixed.

          jlevi Jodi Levi (Inactive) added a comment - After speaking to Jinshan, this will not be fixed.

          After taking a further look at the implementation of catalog llog implementation, unlike plain llog, it reuses its index number. However, after the indices are reused, reading catalog entries will not be in the order when they were added.

          This doesn't seem to be a severe problem because we have ~4G slot anyway.

          I will drop the priority.

          jay Jinshan Xiong (Inactive) added a comment - After taking a further look at the implementation of catalog llog implementation, unlike plain llog, it reuses its index number. However, after the indices are reused, reading catalog entries will not be in the order when they were added. This doesn't seem to be a severe problem because we have ~4G slot anyway. I will drop the priority.

          People

            jhammond John Hammond
            jay Jinshan Xiong (Inactive)
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            6 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: