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

Bugfix/cldsrv 553 #5569

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from
Closed

Bugfix/cldsrv 553 #5569

wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

williamlardier
Copy link
Contributor

@williamlardier williamlardier commented May 16, 2024

Fixes a limitation during a corner case, when restoring an object within account/bucket with enabled exceeded quota:

  • First, we reserve space when processing RestoreObject
  • When the data is being actually restored, the cold backend will PUT the object tot he HOT location (with a specific header, x-scal-s3-version-id). But then tries to increase the inflights: in this case, if the quota is exceeded already, or the bytes are near to the limit, we fail, even if the space was reserved.

This PR introduces a way to detect DMF calls (the specific header) and, in this case, only check the quotas, without increasing the in-flights.

We compare the quota with the current bytes usage minus the reserved space. This ensure that any already-exceeded quota won't block the operation, as the space was reserved.

This solution is not optimal as it is expected that the quota will never exceed the limit by a lot: at the end, we might allow all objects to be restored. But this case can happen only if some in-flights were lost due to the limitations of the metrics update frequency.

A better solution to account for our limitation would use the total number of reserved space bytes, and perform the following operation:

utilizationMetrics - restoringBytes + currentObjectBytes <= quota

In this case, we can better account for the real reserved space: we keep track of the reserved bytes, and thus restores will not exceed space already used by other operations before.

This will be done in a second iteration: for now, we consider that the reserved space is reserved, and lost in-flights are part of the known limitations of the feature.


Alternatively, we can decide to not subtract the current bytes with the current object to restore' size: but in this case, any quota exceeded will deny the request.

A corner case was found, where any PUT from the cold backend would
fail if the quota is already exceeded, as the storage was reserved
for the restore, but the restore itself requires some more bytes
as inflights when evaluating quotas. By passing a flag in the quota
evaluation function, we ensure that we can, in these cases,
evaluate the quotas with 0 inflight.

Thus, we compare the quota with the current bytes usage minus the
reserved space. This solution is not optimal as it is expected
that the quota will never exceed the limit by a lot: at the end,
we might allow all objects to be restored. This case can happen
only if some inflights were lost due to the limitations of the
metrics update frequency.

A better solution would use the total number of reserved space
bytes, and perfor the following operation:

utilizationMetrics - restoringBytes + currentObjectBytes
    <= quota

In this case, we can better account for the real reserved space.
This will be a second iteration.
When the API is being called by a cold backend, the
x-scal-s3-version-id header is set. In this case, the quotas must
be evaluated with a 0 inflight.
@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 16, 2024

Hello williamlardier,

My role is to assist you with the merge of this
pull request. Please type @bert-e help to get information
on this process, or consult the user documentation.

Available options
name description privileged authored
/after_pull_request Wait for the given pull request id to be merged before continuing with the current one.
/bypass_author_approval Bypass the pull request author's approval
/bypass_build_status Bypass the build and test status
/bypass_commit_size Bypass the check on the size of the changeset TBA
/bypass_incompatible_branch Bypass the check on the source branch prefix
/bypass_jira_check Bypass the Jira issue check
/bypass_peer_approval Bypass the pull request peers' approval
/bypass_leader_approval Bypass the pull request leaders' approval
/approve Instruct Bert-E that the author has approved the pull request. ✍️
/create_pull_requests Allow the creation of integration pull requests.
/create_integration_branches Allow the creation of integration branches.
/no_octopus Prevent Wall-E from doing any octopus merge and use multiple consecutive merge instead
/unanimity Change review acceptance criteria from one reviewer at least to all reviewers
/wait Instruct Bert-E not to run until further notice.
Available commands
name description privileged
/help Print Bert-E's manual in the pull request.
/status Print Bert-E's current status in the pull request TBA
/clear Remove all comments from Bert-E from the history TBA
/retry Re-start a fresh build TBA
/build Re-start a fresh build TBA
/force_reset Delete integration branches & pull requests, and restart merge process from the beginning.
/reset Try to remove integration branches unless there are commits on them which do not appear on the source branch.

Status report is not available.

@bert-e
Copy link
Contributor

bert-e commented May 16, 2024

Jira issue not found

The Jira issue CLDSRV-553 was not found.

@williamlardier
Copy link
Contributor Author

See #5570

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants