This does not change the overall license of the git-annex program, which
was already AGPL due to a number of sources files being AGPL already.
Legally speaking, I'm adding a new license under which these files are
now available; I already released their current contents under the GPL
license. Now they're dual licensed GPL and AGPL. However, I intend
for all my future changes to these files to only be released under the
AGPL license, and I won't be tracking the dual licensing status, so I'm
simply changing the license statement to say it's AGPL.
(In some cases, others wrote parts of the code of a file and released it
under the GPL; but in all cases I have contributed a significant portion
of the code in each file and it's that code that is getting the AGPL
license; the GPL license of other contributors allows combining with
AGPL code.)
I suspect this may be due to SQLITE_IOERR_SHORT_READ, but have not
verified.
I was able to reproduce it on Linux after running the test suite in a loop
for 1-3 hours until it failed.
The WAL mode entry change in 3963c5fcf5
may have hidden the problem I was seeing; I have not seen an ErrorIO
since then.
The bug occurred when closeDb was not called, and garbage collection of
the DbHandle didn't give the workerThread time to shut down. Fixed by
exiting the runSqlite action when a commit is made.
(MultiWriter mode already forked off a runSqlite action, so avoided the
problem.)
This commit was sponsored by Brock Spratlen on Patreon.
The export database has writes made to it and then expects to read back
the same data immediately. But, the way that Database.Handle does
writes, in order to support multiple writers, makes that not work, due
to caching issues. This resulted in export re-uploading files it had
already successfully renamed into place.
Fixed by allowing databases to be opened in MultiWriter or SingleWriter
mode. The export database only needs to support a single writer; it does
not make sense for multiple exports to run at the same time to the same
special remote.
All other databases still use MultiWriter mode. And by inspection,
nothing else in git-annex seems to be relying on being able to
immediately query for changes that were just written to the database.
This commit was supported by the NSF-funded DataLad project.
Refactored some common code into initDb.
This only deals with the problem when creating new databases. If a repo
got bad permissions into it, it's up to the user to deal with it.
This commit was sponsored by Ole-Morten Duesund on Patreon.
hSetEncoding of a closed handle segfaults.
https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/71618484c0c197 introduced the crash.
In particular, stdin may get closed (by eg, getContents) and then trying
to set its encoding will crash. We didn't need to adjust stdin's
encoding anyway, but only stderr, to work around
https://github.com/yesodweb/persistent/issues/474
Thanks to Mesar Hameed for assistance related to reproducing this bug.
Writes are optimised by queueing up multiple writes when possible.
The queue is flushed after the Annex monad action finishes. That makes it
happen on program termination, and also whenever a nested Annex monad action
finishes.
Reads are optimised by checking once (per AnnexState) if the database
exists. If the database doesn't exist yet, all reads return mempty.
Reads also cause queued writes to be flushed, so reads will always be
consistent with writes (as long as they're made inside the same Annex monad).
A future optimisation path would be to determine when that's not necessary,
which is probably most of the time, and avoid flushing unncessarily.
Design notes for this commit:
- separate reads from writes
- reuse a handle which is left open until program
exit or until the MVar goes out of scope (and autoclosed then)
- writes are queued
- queue is flushed periodically
- immediate queue flush before any read
- auto-flush queue when database handle is garbage collected
- flush queue on exit from Annex monad
(Note that this may happen repeatedly for a single database connection;
or a connection may be reused for multiple Annex monad actions,
possibly even concurrent ones.)
- if database does not exist (or is empty) the handle
is not opened by reads; reads instead return empty results
- writes open the handle if it was not open previously
Fsck can use the queue for efficiency since it is write-heavy, and only
reads a value before writing it. But, the queue is not suited to the Keys
database.
If a DbHandle is in use by another thread, it could be queueing changes
while shutdown is running. So, wait for the worker to finish before
flushing the queue, so that any last-minute writes are included. Before
this fix, they would be silently dropped.
Of course, if the other thread continues to try to use a DbHandle once it's
closed, it will block forever as the worker is no longer reading from the
jobs MVar. So, that would crash with
"thread blocked indefinitely in an MVar operation".
Also, moved the database to a subdir, as there are multiple files.
This seems to work well with concurrent fscks, although they still do
redundant work due to the commit granularity. Occasionally two writes will
conflict, and one is then deferred and happens later.
Except, with 3 concurrent fscks, I got failures:
git-annex: user error (SQLite3 returned ErrorBusy while attempting to perform prepare "SELECT \"fscked\".\"key\"\nFROM \"fscked\"\nWHERE \"fscked\".\"key\" = ?\n": database is locked)
Argh!!!
Still not robust enough. I have 3 fscks running concurrently, and am
seeing:
("commit deferred",user error (SQLite3 returned ErrorBusy while attempting
to perform step.))
and
git-annex: user error (SQLite3 returned ErrorBusy while attempting to perform prepare "SELECT \"fscked\".\"key\"\nFROM \"fscked\"\nWHERE \"fscked\".\"key\" = ?\n": database is locked)
Sqlite doesn't support multiple concurrent writers
at all. One of them will fail to write. It's not even possible to have two
processes building up separate transactions at the same time. Before using
sqlite, incremental fsck could work perfectly well with multiple fsck
processes running concurrently. I'd like to keep that working.
My partial solution, so far, is to make git-annex buffer writes, and every
so often send them all to sqlite at once, in a transaction. So most of the
time, nothing is writing to the database. (And if it gets unlucky and
a write fails due to a collision with another writer, it can just wait and
retry the write later.) This lets multiple processes write to the database
successfully.
But, for the purposes of concurrent, incremental fsck, it's not ideal.
Each process doesn't immediately learn of files that another process has
checked. So they'll tend to do redundant work.
Only way I can see to improve this is to use some other mechanism for
short-term IPC between the fsck processes. Not yet done.
----
Also, make addDb check if an item is in the database already, and not try
to re-add it. That fixes an intermittent crash with
"SQLite3 returned ErrorConstraint while attempting to perform step."
I am not 100% sure why; it only started happening when I moved write
buffering into the queue. It seemed to generally happen on the same file
each time, so could just be due to multiple files having the same key.
However, I doubt my sound repo has many duplicate keys, and I suspect
something else is going on.
----
Updated benchmark, with the 1000 item queue: 6m33.808s
Database.Handle can now be given a CommitPolicy, making it easy to specify
transaction granularity.
Benchmarking the old git-annex incremental fsck that flips sticky bits
to the new that uses sqlite, running in a repo with 37000 annexed files,
both from cold cache:
old: 6m6.906s
new: 6m26.913s
This commit was sponsored by TasLUG.
Did not keep backwards compat for sticky bit records. An incremental fsck
that is already in progress will start over on upgrade to this version.
This is not yet ready for merging. The autobuilders need to have sqlite
installed.
Also, interrupting a fsck --incremental does not commit the database.
So, resuming with fsck --more restarts from beginning.
Memory: Constant during a fsck of tens of thousands of files.
(But, it does seem to buffer whole transation in memory, so
may really scale with number of files.)
CPU: ?
