[LU-13171] per-component attribute to prevent automated component migration/mirroring Created: 24/Jan/20 Updated: 02/Nov/23 |
|
| Status: | Open |
| Project: | Lustre |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Improvement | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Andreas Dilger | Assignee: | Feng Lei |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Rank (Obsolete): | 9223372036854775807 | ||||||||
| Epic Link: | Hot Pools - Backlog | ||||||||
| Description |
|
It would be useful to add an attribute to a file component that prevents it from being automatically migrated to another storage pool or removed. This is useful, for example, to keep files in a flash pool because it is known that the file is accessed frequently with a poor IO pattern, because it is a VIP user, or whatever. This could be set on file components on an arbitrary basis, rather than having to describe a very complex policy to exclude specific files by pathname or FID. It may also be useful to similarly force a file to be kept in a disk pool because it is known to always be accessed via large streaming IOs, and even if it is frequently accessed, the aggregate bandwidth of the spinning storage is higher than that of the flash, or the file is so large that it would consume too much of the flash pool, or maybe because the admin really doesn't like some user. I think there are several possible mechanisms for this:
I think the third option is the preferred one, since it also ties in nicely with the whole concept of mirroring/pools, etc. Some open questions on behavior for different cases:
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Gerrit Updater [ 18/Jan/22 ] |
|
"Andreas Dilger <adilger@whamcloud.com>" uploaded a new patch: https://review.whamcloud.com/46181 |
| Comment by John Hammond [ 19/Jan/22 ] |
|
It seems awkward to use a LCME flag to control a file. What about a flag (LCME_FL_PIN) that prevents the mirror containing the component from being purged? Also, it's much better for readability if use positively phrased flags and identifiers. So, avoiding "XXX_NO_BLAH_BLAH" flags. |
| Comment by Feng Lei [ 02/Nov/23 ] |
|
There should be 2 requirements:
This ticket will be used to track req-1. then another ticket will be created to track req-2.
|