Adding upstream version 18.2.2.upstream/18.2.2

Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann <daniel.baumann@progress-linux.org>

4 files changed, 849 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/developer_notes.rst b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/developer_notes.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..586b4b71b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/developer_notes.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+============================
+Erasure Code developer notes
+============================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+
+Each chapter of this document explains an aspect of the implementation
+of the erasure code within Ceph. It is mostly based on examples being
+explained to demonstrate how things work. 
+
+Reading and writing encoded chunks from and to OSDs
+---------------------------------------------------
+
+An erasure coded pool stores each object as K+M chunks. It is divided
+into K data chunks and M coding chunks. The pool is configured to have
+a size of K+M so that each chunk is stored in an OSD in the acting
+set. The rank of the chunk is stored as an attribute of the object.
+
+Let's say an erasure coded pool is created to use five OSDs ( K+M =
+5 ) and sustain the loss of two of them ( M = 2 ).
+
+When the object *NYAN* containing *ABCDEFGHI* is written to it, the
+erasure encoding function splits the content in three data chunks,
+simply by dividing the content in three : the first contains *ABC*,
+the second *DEF* and the last *GHI*. The content will be padded if the
+content length is not a multiple of K. The function also creates two
+coding chunks : the fourth with *YXY* and the fifth with *GQC*. Each
+chunk is stored in an OSD in the acting set. The chunks are stored in
+objects that have the same name ( *NYAN* ) but reside on different
+OSDs. The order in which the chunks were created must be preserved and
+is stored as an attribute of the object ( shard_t ), in addition to its
+name. Chunk *1* contains *ABC* and is stored on *OSD5* while chunk *4*
+contains *YXY* and is stored on *OSD3*.
+
+::
+ 
+                             +-------------------+
+                        name |        NYAN       |
+                             +-------------------+
+                     content |      ABCDEFGHI    |
+                             +--------+----------+
+                                      |
+                                      |
+                                      v
+                               +------+------+
+               +---------------+ encode(3,2) +-----------+
+               |               +--+--+---+---+           |
+               |                  |  |   |               |
+               |          +-------+  |   +-----+         |
+               |          |          |         |         |
+            +--v---+   +--v---+   +--v---+  +--v---+  +--v---+
+      name  | NYAN |   | NYAN |   | NYAN |  | NYAN |  | NYAN |
+            +------+   +------+   +------+  +------+  +------+
+     shard  |  1   |   |  2   |   |  3   |  |  4   |  |  5   |
+            +------+   +------+   +------+  +------+  +------+
+   content  | ABC  |   | DEF  |   | GHI  |  | YXY  |  | QGC  |
+            +--+---+   +--+---+   +--+---+  +--+---+  +--+---+
+               |          |          |         |         |
+               |          |          |         |         |
+               |          |       +--+---+     |         |
+               |          |       | OSD1 |     |         |
+               |          |       +------+     |         |
+               |          |       +------+     |         |
+               |          +------>| OSD2 |     |         |
+               |                  +------+     |         |
+               |                  +------+     |         |
+               |                  | OSD3 |<----+         |
+               |                  +------+               |
+               |                  +------+               |
+               |                  | OSD4 |<--------------+
+               |                  +------+
+               |                  +------+
+               +----------------->| OSD5 |
+                                  +------+
+
+
+
+
+When the object *NYAN* is read from the erasure coded pool, the
+decoding function reads three chunks : chunk *1* containing *ABC*,
+chunk *3* containing *GHI* and chunk *4* containing *YXY* and rebuild
+the original content of the object *ABCDEFGHI*. The decoding function
+is informed that the chunks *2* and *5* are missing ( they are called
+*erasures* ). The chunk *5* could not be read because the *OSD4* is
+*out*. 
+
+The decoding function could be called as soon as three chunks are
+read : *OSD2* was the slowest and its chunk does not need to be taken into
+account. This optimization is not implemented in Firefly.
+
+::
+ 
+                             +-------------------+
+                        name |        NYAN       |
+                             +-------------------+
+                     content |      ABCDEFGHI    |
+                             +--------+----------+
+                                      ^
+                                      |
+                                      |
+                               +------+------+
+                               | decode(3,2) |
+                               | erasures 2,5|
+               +-------------->|             |
+               |               +-------------+
+               |                     ^   ^
+               |                     |   +-----+
+               |                     |         |
+            +--+---+   +------+   +--+---+  +--+---+
+      name  | NYAN |   | NYAN |   | NYAN |  | NYAN |
+            +------+   +------+   +------+  +------+
+     shard  |  1   |   |  2   |   |  3   |  |  4   |
+            +------+   +------+   +------+  +------+
+   content  | ABC  |   | DEF  |   | GHI  |  | YXY  |
+            +--+---+   +--+---+   +--+---+  +--+---+
+               ^          .          ^         ^
+               |    TOO   .          |         |
+               |    SLOW  .       +--+---+     |
+               |          ^       | OSD1 |     |
+               |          |       +------+     |
+               |          |       +------+     |
+               |          +-------| OSD2 |     |
+               |                  +------+     |
+               |                  +------+     |
+               |                  | OSD3 |-----+
+               |                  +------+
+               |                  +------+
+               |                  | OSD4 | OUT
+               |                  +------+
+               |                  +------+
+               +------------------| OSD5 |
+                                  +------+
+
+
+Erasure code library
+--------------------
+
+Using `Reed-Solomon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Solomon>`_,
+with parameters K+M, object O is encoded by dividing it into chunks O1,
+O2, ...  OM and computing coding chunks P1, P2, ... PK. Any K chunks
+out of the available K+M chunks can be used to obtain the original
+object.  If data chunk O2 or coding chunk P2 are lost, they can be
+repaired using any K chunks out of the K+M chunks. If more than M
+chunks are lost, it is not possible to recover the object.
+
+Reading the original content of object O can be a simple
+concatenation of O1, O2, ... OM, because the plugins are using
+`systematic codes
+<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_code>`_. Otherwise the chunks
+must be given to the erasure code library *decode* method to retrieve
+the content of the object.
+
+Performance depend on the parameters to the encoding functions and
+is also influenced by the packet sizes used when calling the encoding
+functions ( for Cauchy or Liberation for instance ): smaller packets
+means more calls and more overhead.
+
+Although Reed-Solomon is provided as a default, Ceph uses it via an
+`abstract API <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/v0.78/src/erasure-code/ErasureCodeInterface.h>`_ designed to
+allow each pool to choose the plugin that implements it using
+key=value pairs stored in an `erasure code profile`_. 
+
+.. _erasure code profile: ../../../erasure-coded-pool
+
+::
+ 
+ $ ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile \
+     crush-failure-domain=osd
+ $ ceph osd erasure-code-profile get myprofile
+ directory=/usr/lib/ceph/erasure-code
+ k=2
+ m=1
+ plugin=jerasure
+ technique=reed_sol_van
+ crush-failure-domain=osd
+ $ ceph osd pool create ecpool erasure myprofile
+
+The *plugin* is dynamically loaded from *directory*  and expected to
+implement the *int __erasure_code_init(char *plugin_name, char *directory)* function 
+which is responsible for registering an object derived from *ErasureCodePlugin* 
+in the registry. The `ErasureCodePluginExample <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/v0.78/src/test/erasure-code/ErasureCodePluginExample.cc>`_ plugin reads:
+
+::
+ 
+  ErasureCodePluginRegistry &instance = 
+                             ErasureCodePluginRegistry::instance();
+  instance.add(plugin_name, new ErasureCodePluginExample());
+
+The *ErasureCodePlugin* derived object must provide a factory method
+from which the concrete implementation of the *ErasureCodeInterface*
+object can be generated. The `ErasureCodePluginExample plugin <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/v0.78/src/test/erasure-code/ErasureCodePluginExample.cc>`_ reads:
+
+::
+ 
+  virtual int factory(const map<std::string,std::string> &parameters,
+                      ErasureCodeInterfaceRef *erasure_code) {
+    *erasure_code = ErasureCodeInterfaceRef(new ErasureCodeExample(parameters));
+    return 0;
+  } 
+
+The *parameters* argument is the list of *key=value* pairs that were
+set in the erasure code profile, before the pool was created.
+
+::
+ 
+  ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile \
+     directory=<dir>         \ # mandatory
+     plugin=jerasure         \ # mandatory
+     m=10                    \ # optional and plugin dependent
+     k=3                     \ # optional and plugin dependent
+     technique=reed_sol_van  \ # optional and plugin dependent
+
+Notes
+-----
+
+If the objects are large, it may be impractical to encode and decode
+them in memory. However, when using *RBD* a 1TB device is divided in
+many individual 4MB objects and *RGW* does the same.
+
+Encoding and decoding is implemented in the OSD. Although it could be
+implemented client side for read write, the OSD must be able to encode
+and decode on its own when scrubbing.
diff --git a/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/ecbackend.rst b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/ecbackend.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..877a08a38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/ecbackend.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,206 @@
+=================================
+ECBackend Implementation Strategy
+=================================
+
+Miscellaneous initial design notes
+==================================
+
+The initial (and still true for EC pools without the hacky EC
+overwrites debug flag enabled) design for EC pools restricted
+EC pools to operations that can be easily rolled back:
+
+- CEPH_OSD_OP_APPEND: We can roll back an append locally by
+  including the previous object size as part of the PG log event.
+- CEPH_OSD_OP_DELETE: The possibility of rolling back a delete
+  requires that we retain the deleted object until all replicas have
+  persisted in the deletion event. Erasure Coded backend will therefore
+  need to store objects with the version at which they were created
+  included in the key provided to the filestore.  Old versions of an
+  object can be pruned when all replicas have committed up to the log
+  event deleting the object.
+- CEPH_OSD_OP_(SET|RM)ATTR: If we include the prior value of the attr
+  to be set or removed, we can roll back these operations locally.
+
+Log entries contain a structure explaining how to locally undo the
+operation represented by the operation
+(see osd_types.h:TransactionInfo::LocalRollBack).
+
+PGTemp and Crush
+----------------
+
+Primaries are able to request a temp acting set mapping in order to
+allow an up-to-date OSD to serve requests while a new primary is
+backfilled (and for other reasons).  An erasure coded PG needs to be
+able to designate a primary for these reasons without putting it in
+the first position of the acting set.  It also needs to be able to
+leave holes in the requested acting set.
+
+Core Changes:
+
+- OSDMap::pg_to_*_osds needs to separately return a primary.  For most
+  cases, this can continue to be acting[0].
+- MOSDPGTemp (and related OSD structures) needs to be able to specify
+  a primary as well as an acting set.
+- Much of the existing code base assumes that acting[0] is the primary
+  and that all elements of acting are valid.  This needs to be cleaned
+  up since the acting set may contain holes.
+
+Distinguished acting set positions
+----------------------------------
+
+With the replicated strategy, all replicas of a PG are
+interchangeable.  With erasure coding, different positions in the
+acting set have different pieces of the erasure coding scheme and are
+not interchangeable.  Worse, crush might cause chunk 2 to be written
+to an OSD which happens already to contain an (old) copy of chunk 4.
+This means that the OSD and PG messages need to work in terms of a
+type like pair<shard_t, pg_t> in order to distinguish different PG
+chunks on a single OSD.
+
+Because the mapping of an object name to object in the filestore must
+be 1-to-1, we must ensure that the objects in chunk 2 and the objects
+in chunk 4 have different names.  To that end, the object store must
+include the chunk id in the object key.
+
+Core changes:
+
+- The object store `ghobject_t needs to also include a chunk id
+  <https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/firefly/src/common/hobject.h#L241>`_ making it more like
+  tuple<hobject_t, gen_t, shard_t>.
+- coll_t needs to include a shard_t.
+- The OSD pg_map and similar PG mappings need to work in terms of a
+  spg_t (essentially
+  pair<pg_t, shard_t>).  Similarly, pg->pg messages need to include
+  a shard_t
+- For client->PG messages, the OSD will need a way to know which PG
+  chunk should get the message since the OSD may contain both a
+  primary and non-primary chunk for the same PG
+
+Object Classes
+--------------
+
+Reads from object classes will return ENOTSUP on EC pools by invoking
+a special SYNC read.
+
+Scrub
+-----
+
+The main catch, however, for EC pools is that sending a crc32 of the
+stored chunk on a replica isn't particularly helpful since the chunks
+on different replicas presumably store different data.  Because we
+don't support overwrites except via DELETE, however, we have the
+option of maintaining a crc32 on each chunk through each append.
+Thus, each replica instead simply computes a crc32 of its own stored
+chunk and compares it with the locally stored checksum.  The replica
+then reports to the primary whether the checksums match.
+
+With overwrites, all scrubs are disabled for now until we work out
+what to do (see doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst).
+
+Crush
+-----
+
+If crush is unable to generate a replacement for a down member of an
+acting set, the acting set should have a hole at that position rather
+than shifting the other elements of the acting set out of position.
+
+=========
+ECBackend
+=========
+
+MAIN OPERATION OVERVIEW
+=======================
+
+A RADOS put operation can span
+multiple stripes of a single object. There must be code that
+tessellates the application level write into a set of per-stripe write
+operations -- some whole-stripes and up to two partial
+stripes. Without loss of generality, for the remainder of this
+document, we will focus exclusively on writing a single stripe (whole
+or partial). We will use the symbol "W" to represent the number of
+blocks within a stripe that are being written, i.e., W <= K.
+
+There are three data flows for handling a write into an EC stripe. The
+choice of which of the three data flows to choose is based on the size
+of the write operation and the arithmetic properties of the selected
+parity-generation algorithm.
+
+(1) Whole stripe is written/overwritten
+(2) A read-modify-write operation is performed.
+
+WHOLE STRIPE WRITE
+------------------
+
+This is a simple case, and is already performed in the existing code
+(for appends, that is). The primary receives all of the data for the
+stripe in the RADOS request, computes the appropriate parity blocks
+and send the data and parity blocks to their destination shards which
+write them. This is essentially the current EC code.
+
+READ-MODIFY-WRITE
+-----------------
+
+The primary determines which of the K-W blocks are to be unmodified,
+and reads them from the shards. Once all of the data is received it is
+combined with the received new data and new parity blocks are
+computed. The modified blocks are sent to their respective shards and
+written. The RADOS operation is acknowledged.
+
+OSD Object Write and Consistency
+--------------------------------
+
+Regardless of the algorithm chosen above, writing of the data is a two-
+phase process: commit and rollforward. The primary sends the log
+entries with the operation described (see
+osd_types.h:TransactionInfo::(LocalRollForward|LocalRollBack).  
+In all cases, the "commit" is performed in place, possibly leaving some
+information required for a rollback in a write-aside object.  The
+rollforward phase occurs once all acting set replicas have committed
+the commit, it then removes the rollback information.
+
+In the case of overwrites of existing stripes, the rollback information
+has the form of a sparse object containing the old values of the
+overwritten extents populated using clone_range.  This is essentially
+a place-holder implementation, in real life, bluestore will have an
+efficient primitive for this.
+
+The rollforward part can be delayed since we report the operation as
+committed once all replicas have been committed.  Currently, whenever we
+send a write, we also indicate that all previously committed
+operations should be rolled forward (see
+ECBackend::try_reads_to_commit).  If there aren't any in the pipeline
+when we arrive at the waiting_rollforward queue, we start a dummy
+write to move things along (see the Pipeline section later on and
+ECBackend::try_finish_rmw).
+
+ExtentCache
+-----------
+
+It's pretty important to be able to pipeline writes on the same
+object.  For this reason, there is a cache of extents written by
+cacheable operations.  Each extent remains pinned until the operations
+referring to it are committed.  The pipeline prevents rmw operations
+from running until uncacheable transactions (clones, etc) are flushed
+from the pipeline.
+
+See ExtentCache.h for a detailed explanation of how the cache
+states correspond to the higher level invariants about the conditions
+under which concurrent operations can refer to the same object.
+
+Pipeline
+--------
+
+Reading src/osd/ExtentCache.h should have given a good idea of how
+operations might overlap.  There are several states involved in
+processing a write operation and an important invariant which
+isn't enforced by PrimaryLogPG at a higher level which needs to be
+managed by ECBackend.  The important invariant is that we can't
+have uncacheable and rmw operations running at the same time
+on the same object.  For simplicity, we simply enforce that any
+operation which contains an rmw operation must wait until
+all in-progress uncacheable operations complete.
+
+There are improvements to be made here in the future.
+
+For more details, see ECBackend::waiting_* and
+ECBackend::try_<from>_to_<to>.
diff --git a/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/jerasure.rst b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/jerasure.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ac3636720
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/jerasure.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+===============
+jerasure plugin
+===============
+
+Introduction
+------------
+
+The parameters interpreted by the ``jerasure`` plugin are:
+
+::
+ 
+  ceph osd erasure-code-profile set myprofile \
+     directory=<dir>         \ # plugin directory absolute path
+     plugin=jerasure         \ # plugin name (only jerasure)
+     k=<k>                   \ # data chunks (default 2)
+     m=<m>                   \ # coding chunks (default 2)
+     technique=<technique>   \ # coding technique
+
+The coding techniques can be chosen among *reed_sol_van*,
+*reed_sol_r6_op*, *cauchy_orig*, *cauchy_good*, *liberation*,
+*blaum_roth* and *liber8tion*.
+
+The *src/erasure-code/jerasure* directory contains the
+implementation. It is a wrapper around the code found at
+`https://github.com/ceph/jerasure <https://github.com/ceph/jerasure>`_
+and `https://github.com/ceph/gf-complete
+<https://github.com/ceph/gf-complete>`_ , pinned to the latest stable
+version in *.gitmodules*. These repositories are copies of the
+upstream repositories `http://jerasure.org/jerasure/jerasure
+<http://jerasure.org/jerasure/jerasure>`_ and
+`http://jerasure.org/jerasure/gf-complete
+<http://jerasure.org/jerasure/gf-complete>`_ . The difference
+between the two, if any, should match pull requests against upstream.
+Note that as of 2023, the ``jerasure.org`` web site may no longer be
+legitimate and/or associated with the original project.
diff --git a/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8a30727b3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/dev/osd_internals/erasure_coding/proposals.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,385 @@
+:orphan:
+
+=================================
+Proposed Next Steps for ECBackend
+=================================
+
+PARITY-DELTA-WRITE
+------------------
+
+RMW operations current require 4 network hops (2 round trips).  In
+principle, for some codes, we can reduce this to 3 by sending the
+update to the replicas holding the data blocks and having them
+compute a delta to forward onto the parity blocks.
+
+The primary reads the current values of the "W" blocks and then uses
+the new values of the "W" blocks to compute parity-deltas for each of
+the parity blocks.  The W blocks and the parity delta-blocks are sent
+to their respective shards.
+
+The choice of whether to use a read-modify-write or a
+parity-delta-write is complex policy issue that is TBD in the details
+and is likely to be heavily dependent on the computational costs
+associated with a parity-delta vs. a regular parity-generation
+operation. However, it is believed that the parity-delta scheme is
+likely to be the preferred choice, when available.
+
+The internal interface to the erasure coding library plug-ins needs to
+be extended to support the ability to query if parity-delta
+computation is possible for a selected algorithm as well as an
+interface to the actual parity-delta computation algorithm when
+available.
+
+Stripe Cache
+------------
+
+It may be a good idea to extend the current ExtentCache usage to
+cache some data past when the pinning operation releases it.
+One application pattern that is important to optimize is the small
+block sequential write operation (think of the journal of a journaling
+file system or a database transaction log). Regardless of the chosen
+redundancy algorithm, it is advantageous for the primary to
+retain/buffer recently read/written portions of a stripe in order to
+reduce network traffic. The dynamic contents of this cache may be used
+in the determination of whether a read-modify-write or a
+parity-delta-write is performed. The sizing of this cache is TBD, but
+we should plan on allowing at least a few full stripes per active
+client. Limiting the cache occupancy on a per-client basis will reduce
+the noisy neighbor problem.
+
+Recovery and Rollback Details
+=============================
+
+Implementing a Rollback-able Prepare Operation
+----------------------------------------------
+
+The prepare operation is implemented at each OSD through a simulation
+of a versioning or copy-on-write capability for modifying a portion of
+an object.
+
+When a prepare operation is performed, the new data is written into a
+temporary object. The PG log for the
+operation will contain a reference to the temporary object so that it
+can be located for recovery purposes as well as a record of all of the
+shards which are involved in the operation. 
+
+In order to avoid fragmentation (and hence, future read performance),
+creation of the temporary object needs special attention. The name of
+the temporary object affects its location within the KV store. Right
+now its unclear whether it's desirable for the name to locate near the
+base object or whether a separate subset of keyspace should be used
+for temporary objects. Sam believes that colocation with the base
+object is preferred (he suggests using the generation counter of the
+ghobject for temporaries).  Whereas Allen believes that using a
+separate subset of keyspace is desirable since these keys are
+ephemeral and we don't want to actually colocate them with the base
+object keys. Perhaps some modeling here can help resolve this
+issue. The data of the temporary object wants to be located as close
+to the data of the base object as possible. This may be best performed
+by adding a new ObjectStore creation primitive that takes the base
+object as an additional parameter that is a hint to the allocator.
+
+Sam: I think that the short lived thing may be a red herring.  We'll
+be updating the donor and primary objects atomically, so it seems like
+we'd want them adjacent in the key space, regardless of the donor's
+lifecycle.
+
+The apply operation moves the data from the temporary object into the
+correct position within the base object and deletes the associated
+temporary object. This operation is done using a specialized
+ObjectStore primitive. In the current ObjectStore interface, this can
+be done using the clonerange function followed by a delete, but can be
+done more efficiently with a specialized move primitive.
+Implementation of the specialized primitive on FileStore can be done
+by copying the data. Some file systems have extensions that might also
+be able to implement this operation (like a defrag API that swaps
+chunks between files). It is expected that NewStore will be able to
+support this efficiently and natively (It has been noted that this
+sequence requires that temporary object allocations, which tend to be
+small, be efficiently converted into blocks for main objects and that
+blocks that were formerly inside of main objects must be reusable with
+minimal overhead)
+
+The prepare and apply operations can be separated arbitrarily in
+time. If a read operation accesses an object that has been altered by
+a prepare operation (but without a corresponding apply operation) it
+must return the data after the prepare operation. This is done by
+creating an in-memory database of objects which have had a prepare
+operation without a corresponding apply operation. All read operations
+must consult this in-memory data structure in order to get the correct
+data. It should explicitly recognized that it is likely that there
+will be multiple prepare operations against a single base object and
+the code must handle this case correctly. This code is implemented as
+a layer between ObjectStore and all existing readers.  Annoyingly,
+we'll want to trash this state when the interval changes, so the first
+thing that needs to happen after activation is that the primary and
+replicas apply up to last_update so that the empty cache will be
+correct.
+
+During peering, it is now obvious that an unapplied prepare operation
+can easily be rolled back simply by deleting the associated temporary
+object and removing that entry from the in-memory data structure.
+
+Partial Application Peering/Recovery modifications
+--------------------------------------------------
+
+Some writes will be small enough to not require updating all of the
+shards holding data blocks.  For write amplification minimization
+reasons, it would be best to avoid writing to those shards at all,
+and delay even sending the log entries until the next write which
+actually hits that shard.
+
+The delaying (buffering) of the transmission of the prepare and apply
+operations for witnessing OSDs creates new situations that peering
+must handle. In particular the logic for determining the authoritative
+last_update value (and hence the selection of the OSD which has the
+authoritative log) must be modified to account for the valid but
+missing (i.e., delayed/buffered) pglog entries to which the
+authoritative OSD was only a witness to.
+
+Because a partial write might complete without persisting a log entry
+on every replica, we have to do a bit more work to determine an
+authoritative last_update.  The constraint (as with a replicated PG)
+is that last_update >= the most recent log entry for which a commit
+was sent to the client (call this actual_last_update).  Secondarily,
+we want last_update to be as small as possible since any log entry
+past actual_last_update (we do not apply a log entry until we have
+sent the commit to the client) must be able to be rolled back.  Thus,
+the smaller a last_update we choose, the less recovery will need to
+happen (we can always roll back, but rolling a replica forward may
+require an object rebuild).  Thus, we will set last_update to 1 before
+the oldest log entry we can prove cannot have been committed.  In
+current master, this is simply the last_update of the shortest log
+from that interval (because that log did not persist any entry past
+that point -- a precondition for sending a commit to the client).  For
+this design, we must consider the possibility that any log is missing
+at its head log entries in which it did not participate.  Thus, we
+must determine the most recent interval in which we went active
+(essentially, this is what find_best_info currently does).  We then
+pull the log from each live osd from that interval back to the minimum
+last_update among them.  Then, we extend all logs from the
+authoritative interval until each hits an entry in which it should
+have participated, but did not record.  The shortest of these extended
+logs must therefore contain any log entry for which we sent a commit
+to the client -- and the last entry gives us our last_update.
+
+Deep scrub support
+------------------
+
+The simple answer here is probably our best bet.  EC pools can't use
+the omap namespace at all right now.  The simplest solution would be
+to take a prefix of the omap space and pack N M byte L bit checksums
+into each key/value.  The prefixing seems like a sensible precaution
+against eventually wanting to store something else in the omap space.
+It seems like any write will need to read at least the blocks
+containing the modified range.  However, with a code able to compute
+parity deltas, we may not need to read a whole stripe.  Even without
+that, we don't want to have to write to blocks not participating in
+the write.  Thus, each shard should store checksums only for itself.
+It seems like you'd be able to store checksums for all shards on the
+parity blocks, but there may not be distinguished parity blocks which
+are modified on all writes (LRC or shec provide two examples).  L
+should probably have a fixed number of options (16, 32, 64?) and be
+configurable per-pool at pool creation.  N, M should be likewise be
+configurable at pool creation with sensible defaults.
+
+We need to handle online upgrade.  I think the right answer is that
+the first overwrite to an object with an append only checksum
+removes the append only checksum and writes in whatever stripe
+checksums actually got written.  The next deep scrub then writes
+out the full checksum omap entries.
+
+RADOS Client Acknowledgement Generation Optimization
+====================================================
+
+Now that the recovery scheme is understood, we can discuss the
+generation of the RADOS operation acknowledgement (ACK) by the
+primary ("sufficient" from above). It is NOT required that the primary
+wait for all shards to complete their respective prepare
+operations. Using our example where the RADOS operations writes only
+"W" chunks of the stripe, the primary will generate and send W+M
+prepare operations (possibly including a send-to-self). The primary
+need only wait for enough shards to be written to ensure recovery of
+the data, Thus after writing W + M chunks you can afford the lost of M
+chunks. Hence the primary can generate the RADOS ACK after W+M-M => W
+of those prepare operations are completed.
+
+Inconsistent object_info_t versions
+===================================
+
+A natural consequence of only writing the blocks which actually
+changed is that we don't want to update the object_info_t of the
+objects which didn't.  I actually think it would pose a problem to do
+so: pg ghobject namespaces are generally large, and unless the osd is
+seeing a bunch of overwrites on a small set of objects, I'd expect
+each write to be far enough apart in the backing ghobject_t->data
+mapping to each constitute a random metadata update.  Thus, we have to
+accept that not every shard will have the current version in its
+object_info_t.  We can't even bound how old the version on a
+particular shard will happen to be.  In particular, the primary does
+not necessarily have the current version.  One could argue that the
+parity shards would always have the current version, but not every
+code necessarily has designated parity shards which see every write
+(certainly LRC, iirc shec, and even with a more pedestrian code, it
+might be desirable to rotate the shards based on object hash).  Even
+if you chose to designate a shard as witnessing all writes, the pg
+might be degraded with that particular shard missing.  This is a bit
+tricky, currently reads and writes implicitly return the most recent
+version of the object written.  On reads, we'd have to read K shards
+to answer that question.  We can get around that by adding a "don't
+tell me the current version" flag.  Writes are more problematic: we
+need an object_info from the most recent write in order to form the
+new object_info and log_entry.
+
+A truly terrifying option would be to eliminate version and
+prior_version entirely from the object_info_t.  There are a few
+specific purposes it serves:
+
+#. On OSD startup, we prime the missing set by scanning backwards
+   from last_update to last_complete comparing the stored object's
+   object_info_t to the version of most recent log entry.
+#. During backfill, we compare versions between primary and target
+   to avoid some pushes. We use it elsewhere as well
+#. While pushing and pulling objects, we verify the version.
+#. We return it on reads and writes and allow the librados user to
+   assert it atomically on writesto allow the user to deal with write
+   races (used extensively by rbd).
+
+Case (3) isn't actually essential, just convenient.  Oh well.  (4)
+is more annoying. Writes are easy since we know the version.  Reads
+are tricky because we may not need to read from all of the replicas.
+Simplest solution is to add a flag to rados operations to just not
+return the user version on read.  We can also just not support the
+user version assert on ec for now (I think?  Only user is rgw bucket
+indices iirc, and those will always be on replicated because they use
+omap).
+
+We can avoid (1) by maintaining the missing set explicitly.  It's
+already possible for there to be a missing object without a
+corresponding log entry (Consider the case where the most recent write
+is to an object which has not been updated in weeks.  If that write
+becomes divergent, the written object needs to be marked missing based
+on the prior_version which is not in the log.)  THe PGLog already has
+a way of handling those edge cases (see divergent_priors).  We'd
+simply expand that to contain the entire missing set and maintain it
+atomically with the log and the objects.  This isn't really an
+unreasonable option, the additional keys would be fewer than the
+existing log keys + divergent_priors and aren't updated in the fast
+write path anyway.
+
+The second case is a bit trickier.  It's really an optimization for
+the case where a pg became not in the acting set long enough for the
+logs to no longer overlap but not long enough for the PG to have
+healed and removed the old copy.  Unfortunately, this describes the
+case where a node was taken down for maintenance with noout set. It's
+probably not acceptable to re-backfill the whole OSD in such a case,
+so we need to be able to quickly determine whether a particular shard
+is up to date given a valid acting set of other shards.
+
+Let ordinary writes which do not change the object size not touch the
+object_info at all.  That means that the object_info version won't
+match the pg log entry version.  Include in the pg_log_entry_t the
+current object_info version as well as which shards participated (as
+mentioned above).  In addition to the object_info_t attr, record on
+each shard s a vector recording for each other shard s' the most
+recent write which spanned both s and s'.  Operationally, we maintain
+an attr on each shard containing that vector.  A write touching S
+updates the version stamp entry for each shard in S on each shard in
+S's attribute (and leaves the rest alone).  If we have a valid acting
+set during backfill, we must have a witness of every write which
+completed -- so taking the max of each entry over all of the acting
+set shards must give us the current version for each shard.  During
+recovery, we set the attribute on the recovery target to that max
+vector (Question: with LRC, we may not need to touch much of the
+acting set to recover a particular shard -- can we just use the max of
+the shards we used to recovery, or do we need to grab the version
+vector from the rest of the acting set as well?  I'm not sure, not a
+big deal anyway, I think).
+
+The above lets us perform blind writes without knowing the current
+object version (log entry version, that is) while still allowing us to
+avoid backfilling up to date objects.  The only catch is that our
+backfill scans will can all replicas, not just the primary and the
+backfill targets.
+
+It would be worth adding into scrub the ability to check the
+consistency of the gathered version vectors -- probably by just
+taking 3 random valid subsets and verifying that they generate
+the same authoritative version vector.
+
+Implementation Strategy
+=======================
+
+It goes without saying that it would be unwise to attempt to do all of
+this in one massive PR.  It's also not a good idea to merge code which
+isn't being tested.  To that end, it's worth thinking a bit about
+which bits can be tested on their own (perhaps with a bit of temporary
+scaffolding).
+
+We can implement the overwrite friendly checksumming scheme easily
+enough with the current implementation.  We'll want to enable it on a
+per-pool basis (probably using a flag which we'll later repurpose for
+actual overwrite support).  We can enable it in some of the ec
+thrashing tests in the suite.  We can also add a simple test
+validating the behavior of turning it on for an existing ec pool
+(later, we'll want to be able to convert append-only ec pools to
+overwrite ec pools, so that test will simply be expanded as we go).
+The flag should be gated by the experimental feature flag since we
+won't want to support this as a valid configuration -- testing only.
+We need to upgrade append only ones in place during deep scrub.
+
+Similarly, we can implement the unstable extent cache with the current
+implementation, it even lets us cut out the readable ack the replicas
+send to the primary after the commit which lets it release the lock.
+Same deal, implement, gate with experimental flag, add to some of the
+automated tests.  I don't really see a reason not to use the same flag
+as above.
+
+We can certainly implement the move-range primitive with unit tests
+before there are any users.  Adding coverage to the existing
+objectstore tests would suffice here.
+
+Explicit missing set can be implemented now, same deal as above --
+might as well even use the same feature bit.
+
+The TPC protocol outlined above can actually be implemented an append
+only EC pool.  Same deal as above, can even use the same feature bit.
+
+The RADOS flag to suppress the read op user version return can be
+implemented immediately.  Mostly just needs unit tests.
+
+The version vector problem is an interesting one.  For append only EC
+pools, it would be pointless since all writes increase the size and
+therefore update the object_info.  We could do it for replicated pools
+though.  It's a bit silly since all "shards" see all writes, but it
+would still let us implement and partially test the augmented backfill
+code as well as the extra pg log entry fields -- this depends on the
+explicit pg log entry branch having already merged.  It's not entirely
+clear to me that this one is worth doing separately.  It's enough code
+that I'd really prefer to get it done independently, but it's also a
+fair amount of scaffolding that will be later discarded.
+
+PGLog entries need to be able to record the participants and log
+comparison needs to be modified to extend logs with entries they
+wouldn't have witnessed.  This logic should be abstracted behind
+PGLog so it can be unittested -- that would let us test it somewhat
+before the actual ec overwrites code merges.
+
+Whatever needs to happen to the ec plugin interface can probably be
+done independently of the rest of this (pending resolution of
+questions below).
+
+The actual nuts and bolts of performing the ec overwrite it seems to
+me can't be productively tested (and therefore implemented) until the
+above are complete, so best to get all of the supporting code in
+first.
+
+Open Questions
+==============
+
+Is there a code we should be using that would let us compute a parity
+delta without rereading and reencoding the full stripe?  If so, is it
+the kind of thing we need to design for now, or can it be reasonably
+put off?
+
+What needs to happen to the EC plugin interface?