-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 40
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
[#5333 5/6] Region snapshot replacement step #6350
Merged
jmpesp
merged 8 commits into
oxidecomputer:main
from
jmpesp:snapshot_replacement_part_5
Aug 26, 2024
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
8788274
[#5333 5/6] Region snapshot replacement step
jmpesp b507133
fix test_omdb_success_cases
jmpesp 804568b
colume -> column
jmpesp 5af0ff9
otherwise what? that makes no sense!
jmpesp 4de6cc4
Merge branch 'main' into snapshot_replacement_part_5
jmpesp 9a9cc60
be specific, use delete over clean up
jmpesp 43f1d71
more comments always
jmpesp 11c5f13
Merge branch 'main' into snapshot_replacement_part_5
jmpesp File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could
region_snapshot_replacement_start
,region_snapshot_replacement_garbage_collection
,and
region_snapshot_replacement_step
all start at the same time?Like, do we need to consider thundering heard type problems here and stagger these from each other
a littlie? Or will the trigger to start each one come in at different times and keeping them the same
will ensure that they don't collide?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As far as I know, they usually do start at the same time! :) I think we're ok - each task only operates on requests that are in a certain state, and so are bounded in that sense from it being a thundering herd.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm thinking about a sled being expunged and all 10 crucible zones and all the things
that could be on those 10 zones, etc. Making sure we can handle an outage like that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right now we only limit the number of operations that can happen at one time to a Volume, and don't currently limit otherwise.I'm not too concerned
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(hit comment too early!) I'm not too concerned, but it will be quite a bit of traffic to have all those reconciliations, live repairs, and clones going on... on second thought maybe I am concerned haha.
I'm not sure what to do other than to test it out and see though. We might be able to come up with an upper bound on the number of regions and snapshots maybe? Even if we do we can't know what the non-expunge load on the rack will be at any given time.
What do you think? Do you think some sort of limit is a good idea?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's hard to say if we should set a limit without knowing what the load a repair might generate.
But, that being said, it is probably better to put in a limit to make things slower but still
able to finish and then loosen that limit as we discover how much the rack can handle.
The alternative would be to just let repair take as many resources as it wants and, then
let things break if it's too much? That second choice does not sound like something
I would want to explain to a customer :)
We don't have anything yet we can use as an overall guage of rack "busyness". In additon,
we don't know the load an "average repair" generates even. Maybe our first steps would
be to build the tools to determine what the current repair load is so we can measure
it's impact?