67 lines
2.9 KiB
Text
67 lines
2.9 KiB
Text
|
Say we have 2 backup drives and want to fill them both evenly with files,
|
||
|
|
different files in each drive. Currently, preferred content cannot express
|
||
|
|
that entirely:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* One way is to use a-m* and n-z*, but that's unlikely to split filenames evenly.
|
||
|
|
* Or, can let both repos take whatever files, perhaps at random, that the
|
||
|
|
other repo is not know to contain, but then repos will race and both get
|
||
|
|
the same file, or similarly if they are not communicating frequently.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So, let's add a new expression: `balanced_amoung(group)`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This would work by taking the list of uuids of all repositories in the
|
||
|
|
group, and sorting them, which yields a list from 0..M-1 repositories.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
To decide which repository wants key K, convert K to a number N in some
|
||
|
|
stable way and then `N mod M` yields the number of the repository that
|
||
|
|
wants it, while all the rest don't.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(Since git-annex keys can be pretty long and not all of them are random
|
||
|
|
hashes, let's md5sum the key and then use the md5 as a number.)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This expression is stable as long as the members of the group don't change.
|
||
|
|
I think that's stable enough to work as a preferred content expression.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Now, you may want to be able to add a third repo and have the data be
|
||
|
|
rebalanced, with some moving to it. And that would happen. However, as this
|
||
|
|
scheme stands, it's equally likely that adding repo3 will make repo1 and
|
||
|
|
repo2 want to swap files between them. So, we'll want to add some
|
||
|
|
precautions to avoid a lof of data moving around in this case:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
((balanced_amoung(backup) and not (copies=backup:1)) or present
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
So once file lands on a backup drive, it stays there, even if more backup
|
||
|
|
drives change the balancing.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-----
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Some limitations:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* The item size is not taken into account. One repo could end up with a
|
||
|
|
much larger item or items and so fill up faster. And the other repo
|
||
|
|
wouldn't then notice it was full and take up some slack.
|
||
|
|
* With the complicated expression above, adding a new repo when one
|
||
|
|
is full would not necessarily result in new files going to one of the 2
|
||
|
|
repos that still have space. Some items would end up going to the full
|
||
|
|
repo.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
These can be dealt with by noticing when a repo is full and moving some
|
||
|
|
of it's files (any will do) to other repos in its group. I don't see a way
|
||
|
|
to make preferred content express that movement though; it would need to be
|
||
|
|
a manual/scripted process.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
-----
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
What if we have 5 backup repos and want each file to land in 3 of them?
|
||
|
|
There's a simple change that can support that:
|
||
|
|
`balanced_amoung(group:3)`
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This works the same as before, but rather than just `N mod M`, take
|
||
|
|
`N+I mod M` where I is [0..2] to get the list of 3 repositories that want a
|
||
|
|
key.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
This does not really avoid the limitations above, but having more repos
|
||
|
|
that want each file will reduce the chances that no repo will be able to
|
||
|
|
take a given file. In the [[iabackup]] scenario, new clients will just be
|
||
|
|
assigned until all the files reach the desired level or replication.
|