Without actually simulating cluster implementation at all. Instead, only
the essential fact that cluster gateways know what changes they have
made to each node of a cluster. That is enough for sims like
sizebalanced_cluster.
Noticed that it was quite slow compared with things like action
sendwanted. Guessed that the slowdown is largely due to every step
doing a simulated git pull/push.
So, rather than always doing a pull/push, only do those when no actions
are found without doing a pull/push.
This does mean that step will sometimes experience a split brain
situation, but that seems like a good thing? Because step ought to
explore as many possible scenarios as it reasonably can.
This demonstrates concurrent behavior that looks right. And with a
random seed, the results are deterministic.
init foo
init bar
init backup
connect foo <-> bar
connect foo <-> backup
addmulti 10 testfiles 1mb 1gb foo backup
action foo gitpull backup
wanted foo nothing
wanted bar anything
wanted backup anything
action bar gitpull foo
action foo dropunwanted while action bar getwanted foo
When getting from a remote, have to check that the repo doing the
getting thinks the remote contains the key, but also that the remote
actually does. Before this bug fix, it would get from a repo that used
to have the key, but that had dropped it since the last git pull.
Detect when a preferred content expression contains "not present", which
would lead to repeatedly getting and then dropping files, and make it never
match. This also applies to "not balanced" and "not sizebalanced".
--explain will tell the user when this happens
Note that getMatcher calls matchMrun' and does not check for unstable
negated limits. While there is no --present anyway, if there was,
it would not make sense for --not --present to complain about
instability and fail to match.
Reorganized the reposize database directory, and split up a column.
checkStaleSizeChanges needs to run before needLiveUpdate,
otherwise the process won't be holding a lock on its pid file, and
another process could go in and expire the live update it records. It
just so happens that they do get called in the correct order, since
checking balanced preferred content calls getLiveRepoSizes before
needLiveUpdate.
The 1 minute delay between checks is arbitrary, but will avoid excess
work. The downside of it is that, if a process is dropping a file and
gets interrupted, for 1 minute another process can expect a repository
will soon be smaller than it is. And so a process might send data to a
repository when a file is not really going to be dropped from it. But
note that can already happen if a drop takes some time in eg locking and
then fails. So it seems possible that live updates should only be
allowed to increase, rather than decrease the size of a repository.
Only when the preferred content expression being matched uses balanced
preferred content is this overhead needed.
It might be possible to eliminate the locking entirely. Eg, check the
live changes before and after the action and re-run if they are not
stable. For now, this is good enough, it avoids existing preferred
content getting slow. If balanced preferred content turns out to be too
slow to check, that could be tried later.
This makes sure that two threads don't check balanced preferred content at the
same time, so each thread always sees a consistent picture of what is
happening.
This does add a fairly expensive file level lock to every check of
preferred content, in commands that use prepareLiveUpdate. It would
be good to only do that when live updates are actually needed, eg when
the preferred content expression uses balanced preferred content.
Fixed successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange to not update the rolling total
when a redundant change is in RecentChanges.
Made setRepoSizes clear RecentChanges that are no longer needed.
It might be possible to clear those earlier, this is only a convenient
point to do it.
The reason it's safe to clear RecentChanges here is that, in order for a
live update to call successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange, a change must be
made to a location log. If a RecentChange gets cleared, and just after
that a new live update is started, making the same change, the location
log has already been changed (since the RecentChange exists), and
so when the live update succeeds, it won't call
successfullyFinishedLiveSizeChange. The reason it doesn't
clear RecentChanges when there is a reduntant live update is because
I didn't want to think through whether or not all races are avoided in
that case.
The rolling total in SizeChanges is never cleared. Instead,
calcJournalledRepoSizes gets the initial value of it, and then
getLiveRepoSizes subtracts that initial value from the current value.
Since the rolling total can only be updated by updateRepoSize,
which is called with the journal locked, locking the journal in
calcJournalledRepoSizes ensures that the database does not change while
reading the journal.
It's possible for two processes or threads to both be doing the same
operation at the same time. Eg, both dropping the same key. If one
finishes and updates the rollingtotal, then the other one needs to be
prevented from later updating the rollingtotal as well. And they could
finish at the same time, or with some time in between.
Addressed this by making updateRepoSize be called with the journal
locked, and only once it's been determined that there is an actual
location change to record in the log. updateRepoSize waits for the
database to be updated.
When there is a redundant operation, updateRepoSize won't be called,
and the redundant LiveUpdate will be removed from the database on
garbage collection.
But: There will be a window where the redundant LiveUpdate is still
visible in the db, and processes can see it, combine it with the
rollingtotal, and arrive at the wrong size. This is a small window, but
it still ought to be addressed. Unsure if it would always be safe to
remove the redundant LiveUpdate? Consider the case where two drops and a
get are all running concurrently somehow, and the order they finish is
[drop, get, drop]. The second drop seems redundant to the first, but
it would not be safe to remove it. While this seems unlikely, it's hard
to rule out that a get and drop at different stages can both be running
at the same time.
