-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 579
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Cloud storage: unique archived segment names #3365
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ztlpn
requested review from
dotnwat,
ivotron,
Lazin,
LenaAn,
mmaslankaprv,
NyaliaLui and
VadimPlh
as code owners
December 28, 2021 16:09
ztlpn
requested review from
ajfabbri and
jcsp
and removed request for
dotnwat,
ivotron and
mmaslankaprv
December 28, 2021 16:10
Previously segment paths were used in the manifest for the case when segments come from a different ntp revision than the current one (these segments could appear in the manifest for example after recovery). This lead to a lot of code that had to handle both cases for manifest keys (short names and full paths) and parsed these paths and assembled them back. By storing ntp revision id in segment_meta instead, we can eliminate all this code. Segment paths become opaque, as we don't have to parse them anywhere - we only generate them when we need to talk to cloud storage and that's it.
See redpanda-data#3272. To ensure that segments in the cloud storage are not overwritten by concurrent archivers running on different nodes, we append archiver term id as a suffix for segment paths. As raft guarantees that in each term there will be only one leader, this ensures segment path uniqueness.
ztlpn
force-pushed
the
unique-archived-segment-names
branch
from
December 29, 2021 12:54
b1dc613
to
8cf6c12
Compare
changes in force-push:
|
Lazin
reviewed
Dec 29, 2021
BOOST_REQUIRE(res.has_value() == false); | ||
} | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
good riddance to all the code below
Lazin
approved these changes
Jan 11, 2022
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
This pull request was closed.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Cover letter
Fixes #3272
To ensure that segments in the cloud storage are not overwritten by concurrent archivers running on different nodes, we append archiver term id as a suffix for segment paths. As raft guarantees that in each term there will be only one leader, this ensures segment path uniqueness.
Release notes
Bug fixes