Uploaded image for project: 'Apache Ozone'
  1. Apache Ozone
  2. HDDS-5267

Full Container Report can remove replicas added by an Incremental Report



    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Open
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Affects Version/s: 1.1.0
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Ozone Datanode, SCM
    • Labels:


      In HDDS-5249, I highlighted an issue between Incremental and Full container reports. This follow-up Jira is to trace the second problem mentioned in that Jira.

      After HDDS-5249, the report processing for a given DN on SCM in synchronised so only 1 report can process at a time for a given DN.

      We can still have the following scenario:

      1. FCR generated on DN, including containers up to ID 1000.

      2. At the same time ICR generated on DN for container 1001.

      3. The ICR is processed first on SCM, adding 1001.

      4. The FCR is processed, and this will cause the reference to 1001 to be removed as it is not in the FCR.

      5. About 60 - 90 seconds later another FCR will be generated which will correct the issue.

      As things stand, there is no locking on the DN to ensure that a FCR and ICR cannot be generated at the same time.

      There is also no way to know that a given ICR is contained in a given FCR or not.

      One way to fix this problem, would be:

      1. Introduce some locking in the DN to ensure that FCR, ICR and new container creation are serialized.

      2. Introduce an increasing sequence number which is assigned to each FCR and ICR. If a report has a greater sequence than another one, then it supersedes the small one.

      ICR #seq=100, container=1001, FCR #seq=99. In this case, the FCR will not have container 1001.
      ICR #seq=99, container=1001, FCR #seq=100. In this case, the FCR is guaranteed to have container 1001

      Then we need to figure out a way on the DNs to use this information. One way, would be attaching the report sequence number to each replica, and only remove it if the sequence is less than the current report sequence. However that would add some memory overhead to SCM, so it is worth looking into alternatives.


          Issue Links



              • Assignee:
                kerneltime Ritesh H Shukla
                sodonnell Stephen O'Donnell
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                4 Start watching this issue


                • Created: