On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:18:13PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > At Fri, 17 Jan 2014 16:39:59 +0800, > Liu Yuan wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:10:04PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote: > > > Current sheepdog allows the condition of a number of zones < a number > > > of copies. But "dog vdi check" cannot handle the case well because it > > > tries to create copies of lost/corrupted objects based on > > > inode->nr_copies. > > > > > > This patch lets "dog vdi check" create a minimum number of copies and > > > zones. > > > > > > Reported-by: Marcin Mirosław <marcin at mejor.pl> > > > Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake <mitake.hitoshi at lab.ntt.co.jp> > > > --- > > > > > > v3: handle a case of erasure coded VDIs > > > > > > v2: renameing, zones_nr -> sd_zones_nr > > > > > > dog/vdi.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/dog/vdi.c b/dog/vdi.c > > > index 8fd4664..b6d382c 100644 > > > --- a/dog/vdi.c > > > +++ b/dog/vdi.c > > > @@ -1800,11 +1800,11 @@ static void vdi_check_object_main(struct work *work) > > > } > > > > > > static void queue_vdi_check_work(const struct sd_inode *inode, uint64_t oid, > > > - uint64_t *done, struct work_queue *wq) > > > + uint64_t *done, struct work_queue *wq, > > > + int nr_copies) > > > { > > > struct vdi_check_info *info; > > > const struct sd_vnode *tgt_vnodes[SD_MAX_COPIES]; > > > - int nr_copies = inode->nr_copies; > > > > > > info = xzalloc(sizeof(*info) + sizeof(info->vcw[0]) * nr_copies); > > > info->oid = oid; > > > @@ -1830,6 +1830,7 @@ struct check_arg { > > > const struct sd_inode *inode; > > > uint64_t *done; > > > struct work_queue *wq; > > > + int nr_copies; > > > }; > > > > > > static void check_cb(void *data, enum btree_node_type type, void *arg) > > > @@ -1844,7 +1845,8 @@ static void check_cb(void *data, enum btree_node_type type, void *arg) > > > oid = vid_to_data_oid(ext->vdi_id, ext->idx); > > > *(carg->done) = (uint64_t)ext->idx * SD_DATA_OBJ_SIZE; > > > vdi_show_progress(*(carg->done), carg->inode->vdi_size); > > > - queue_vdi_check_work(carg->inode, oid, NULL, carg->wq); > > > + queue_vdi_check_work(carg->inode, oid, NULL, carg->wq, > > > + carg->nr_copies); > > > } > > > } > > > } > > > @@ -1855,8 +1857,15 @@ int do_vdi_check(const struct sd_inode *inode) > > > uint64_t done = 0, oid; > > > uint32_t vid; > > > struct work_queue *wq; > > > + int nr_copies = min((int)inode->nr_copies, sd_zones_nr); > > > + > > > + if (inode->copy_policy && sd_zones_nr < nr_copies) { > > > + sd_err("ABORT: Not enough active zones for consistency-checking" > > > + " erasure coded VDI"); > > > > explicitly check inode->copy_policy == 1, since later we might add other policy. > > OK. > > > > > > + return EXIT_FAILURE; > > > + } > > > > > > - if (sd_nodes_nr < inode->nr_copies) { > > > + if (sd_nodes_nr < nr_copies) { > > > > we should check sd_zones_nr < nr_copies as my previous mail suggested, no? > > > > The condition should be checked only for erasure coded VDIs, no? It is > an ordinal condition for replicated VDis. > For either EC or replicated, we use zone to represent the node identity. So e.g, we have 6 nodes in 1 zone, it means we have 1 node for hash ring. In this case, for 4:2 ec, we should abort, or we'll meet a panic. I think we use sd_zones_nr check for safe guard since you already handle the copy_nr beforehand. If you don't want this, we can safely remove this check. Either way, I think you should leave it as (sd_zones_nr < nr_copies) or remove this check, Thanks Yuan |