5 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Chris Lu	f0d2a0d417	Treat co-located volume servers as one fault domain when balancing and allocating (#9854) ... * admin/topology: carry the volume server address on DiskInfo The planning DiskInfo exposed only the node id, which can be an opaque label rather than ip:port. Record the address too so callers can resolve the physical machine a disk sits on. * ec.balance: spread a volume's shards across machines, not just nodes Volume servers sharing a host are one fault domain, but the within-rack spread treated them as independent nodes, so one box could end up holding more shards of a volume than EC can afford to lose. Add a machine (host) tier between rack and node: the within-rack pass spreads each volume across machines, and the global load phase no longer re-concentrates a volume onto a machine it already sits on. Host defaults to the node id, so clusters with one server per host are unchanged. * ec placement: prefer machines holding fewer of a volume's shards EC allocation and repair picked the least-loaded node in a rack with no regard for which physical machine it sits on, so a volume's shards could pile onto several servers of one box. Rank candidate nodes by their machine's shard count first, then the node's own. The machine is derived from the volume server address carried on DiskInfo, falling back to the node id, matching how the balancer resolves it. * volume.balance: don't move a replica onto a machine already holding one isGoodMove only rejected a move onto the same data node, so two replicas could land on two volume servers of one box and a single machine failure would lose both. Reject a target whose host already holds another replica of the volume. Best-effort: balancing simply skips and tries the next target. * volume allocation: spread same-rack replicas across machines PickNodesByWeight filled the same-rack replica picks by weight alone, so replicas could co-locate on one box. Prefer candidates on not-yet-used hosts, falling back when too few distinct machines exist. Data-center and rack tiers have no host, so their ordering is unchanged. * ec.balance: harden machine spread against re-concentration and capped machines Two cases where the machine-aware spread could still leave a volume badly placed: - The global load phase could move a shard of a volume onto a machine that already held it, raising that machine's count and undoing the within-rack spread (a 4/4/3/3 layout could become 3/5/3/3, past parity for 10+4). Limit the load-only fallback to same-machine moves, which leave a machine's count unchanged; cross-machine concentration is no longer allowed for load alone. - The within-rack spread chose a destination machine by free slots alone, so if that machine's only nodes were already at the SameRackCount cap it skipped the move instead of trying another machine. Require a machine to have a node that can actually take the shard before selecting it. * reduce comments across the machine-affinity change Trim narration down to the non-obvious why; one terse line where a block was overkill. * ec.balance: gate machine spread on fault-tolerance feasibility Spreading a volume evenly across machines only helps when there are enough that each can stay within EC's parity tolerance (numMachines >= ceil(total/parity)). With fewer -- or wildly unequal -- machines it can't make a machine loss survivable anyway, and forcing it fights capacity: e.g. a cluster of 12 volume servers on one host and 2 on another would have half of every volume crammed onto the 2-server box. So spread across machines only when it's achievable; otherwise fall back to per-node spread and let capacity/global balancing decide. The global load phase applies the same test: it protects a volume's machine spread (no cross-machine move that raises a machine's count past the source's) only where that spread is achievable, so heterogeneous clusters still level by fullness. * ec.balance worker: group servers by host when planning The worker built its planner topology without recording each server's host, so automated ec.balance treated ports on one machine as independent nodes and could concentrate a volume's shards on one physical box. Set the host from the volume server address, matching the shell path. * volume.balance worker: don't move a replica onto a machine holding one The worker compared only node ids, and the replica map dropped the server address, so it could move replicas onto different ports of one machine. Carry the host on ReplicaLocation (from the server address) and reject a target whose host already holds another replica of the volume. Best-effort, matching the shell. * ec.balance: judge machine-spread feasibility by the rack's shards The within-rack and global feasibility checks compared the whole volume's shard count against a rack's machine count, so a rack holding only part of a volume after cross-rack spreading -- e.g. 7 of a 10+4 volume across 2 machines -- was wrongly judged infeasible and fell back to node spread, which could pile 6 shards onto one host, past parity. Gate on the rack's own shard count of the volume instead. * ec.balance: spread a volume's shards across machines by combined count EC recovers from any loss within parity regardless of shard type, so what bounds a machine's exposure is its total shards of the volume, not data and parity separately. Spreading the two independently let each type's remainder land on the same machine -- ceil(d/M)+ceil(p/M) can exceed ceil(total/M), e.g. a 5/3 split where 4/4 was achievable, past parity. Balance the combined count in one pass; disk-level data/parity anti-affinity stays in pickBestDiskOnNode. * ec.balance: don't let the imbalance threshold skip an over-parity machine The within-rack spread gated on relative skew ((max-min)/avg > threshold), so a worker threshold of 0.5 skipped an exactly-50%-skewed layout like 5/4/3 for a 10+4 volume, leaving 5 shards -- past parity -- on one machine. The even cap (ceil(shards/groups)) is the real bound and the move loop already sheds only what exceeds it, so drop the threshold gate from the within-rack phase (machine and node): a balanced rack stays a no-op while any over-cap machine is always fixed. * ec.balance: keep the imbalance threshold for the node fallback Dropping the threshold from the whole within-rack phase made the node fallback too eager: it runs only when machine fault tolerance is unachievable, so it is cosmetic load distribution that should defer to the global utilization phase. Without the gate it would, for a one-server-per-host 6/4 split at threshold 0.5, schedule a count move that worsens utilization balance. Restore the threshold there; machine spreading keeps bypassing it, since that bound is durability, not cosmetic skew.	2026-06-07 14:14:45 -07:00
Chris Lu	2c1482f7a6	fix(ec): clear cross-server stale EC shards before re-distribute (#9478) (#9499) ... * fix(ec): clear cross-server stale EC shards before re-distribute (#9478) A previous failed encode leaves partial .ec?? shards mounted on destination volume servers that are not the .dat owner. PR #9480 only prunes when the .dat sits on a sibling disk of the SAME store, so the cross-server case stays stuck: every retry trips volume_grpc_copy.go:570's "ec volume %d is mounted; refusing overwrite" guard and the scheduler loops. Detection already lists existing EC shards as CleanupECShards sources; plumb the shard ids through (ActiveTopology.GetECShardLocations, TaskSourceSpec, TaskSource.shard_ids) and have the EC worker call VolumeEcShardsUnmount + VolumeEcShardsDelete on each destination after the local shard set is generated and before distributeEcShards. Skip EC-shard sources in getReplicas so the post-encode VolumeDelete step does not target destination-only nodes. Integration test mounts a partial shard subset, asserts the mounted-volume refusal, runs cleanupStaleEcShards, and asserts the next ReceiveFile lands. * chore(ec): tighten code comments in stale-shard cleanup Drop issue-number refs from code comments and shorten the docstrings on cleanupStaleEcShards / unmountAndDeleteEcShards / getReplicas plus the new test file. Behavior unchanged. * fix(ec): skip empty-ShardIds locations; dedupe getReplicas by node GetECShardLocations dropped entries where ecShardMatchesCollection saw a phantom info record with EcIndexBits=0 — without ShardIds, getReplicas misread the resulting source as a regular replica and would have called VolumeDelete on a destination-only node. getReplicas now dedupes by Node since VolumeDelete is server-wide; per-disk source rows on the same server collapse to one call. * refactor(ec): use MaxShardCount and ShardBits in collectShardIdsForDisk Drop the literal 32 bit-iteration bound for erasure_coding.MaxShardCount and treat the EcIndexBits union as a ShardBits so Count() drives the slice preallocation. Keeps the helper aligned with the rest of the EC code and survives any future expansion of the shard-count ceiling.	2026-05-14 11:57:45 -07:00
Chris Lu	c260e6a22e	Fix issue #7880: Tasks use Volume IDs instead of ip:port (#7881) ... * Fix issue #7880: Tasks use Volume IDs instead of ip:port When volume servers are registered with custom IDs, tasks were attempting to connect using the ID instead of the actual ip:port address, causing connection failures. Modified task detection logic in balance, erasure coding, and vacuum tasks to resolve volume server IDs to their actual ip:port addresses using ActiveTopology information. * Use server addresses directly instead of translating from IDs Modified VolumeHealthMetrics to include ServerAddress field populated directly from topology DataNodeInfo.Address. Updated task detection logic to use addresses directly without runtime lookups. Changes: - Added ServerAddress field to VolumeHealthMetrics - Updated maintenance scanner to populate ServerAddress - Modified task detection to use ServerAddress for Node fields - Updated DestinationPlan to include TargetAddress - Removed runtime address lookups in favor of direct address usage * Address PR comments: add ServerAddress field, improve error handling - Add missing ServerAddress field to VolumeHealthMetrics struct - Add warning in vacuum detection when server not found in topology - Improve error handling in erasure coding to abort task if sources missing - Make vacuum task stricter by skipping if server not found in topology * Refactor: Extract common address resolution logic into shared utility - Created weed/worker/tasks/util/address.go with ResolveServerAddress function - Updated balance, erasure_coding, and vacuum detection to use the shared utility - Removed code duplication and improved maintainability - Consistent error handling across all task types * Fix critical issues in task address resolution - Vacuum: Require topology availability and fail if server not found (no fallback to ID) - Ensure all task types consistently fail early when topology is incomplete - Prevent creation of tasks that would fail due to missing server addresses * Address additional PR feedback - Add validation for empty addresses in ResolveServerAddress - Remove redundant serverAddress variable in vacuum detection - Improve robustness of address resolution * Improve error logging in vacuum detection - Include actual error details in log message for better diagnostics - Make error messages consistent with other task types	2025-12-25 16:14:05 -08:00
3 people	25bbf4c3d4	Admin UI: Fetch task logs (#7114) ... * show task details * loading tasks * task UI works * generic rendering * rendering the export link * removing placementConflicts from task parameters * remove TaskSourceLocation * remove "Server ID" column * rendering balance task source * sources and targets * fix ec task generation * move info * render timeline * simplified worker id * simplify * read task logs from worker * isValidTaskID * address comments * Update weed/worker/tasks/balance/execution.go Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update weed/worker/tasks/erasure_coding/ec_task.go Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update weed/worker/tasks/task_log_handler.go Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * fix shard ids * plan distributing shard id * rendering planned shards in task details * remove Conflicts * worker logs correctly * pass in dc and rack * task logging * Update weed/admin/maintenance/maintenance_queue.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * display log details * logs have fields now * sort field keys * fix link * fix collection filtering * avoid hard coded ec shard counts --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>	2025-08-09 21:47:29 -07:00
3 people	0ecb466eda	Admin: refactoring active topology (#7073) ... * refactoring * add ec shard size * address comments * passing task id There seems to be a disconnect between the pending tasks created in ActiveTopology and the TaskDetectionResult returned by this function. A taskID is generated locally and used to create pending tasks via AddPendingECShardTask, but this taskID is not stored in the TaskDetectionResult or passed along in any way. This makes it impossible for the worker that eventually executes the task to know which pending task in ActiveTopology it corresponds to. Without the correct taskID, the worker cannot call AssignTask or CompleteTask on the master, breaking the entire task lifecycle and capacity management feature. A potential solution is to add a TaskID field to TaskDetectionResult and worker_pb.TaskParams, ensuring the ID is propagated from detection to execution. * 1 source multiple destinations * task supports multi source and destination * ec needs to clean up previous shards * use erasure coding constants * getPlanningCapacityUnsafe getEffectiveAvailableCapacityUnsafe should return StorageSlotChange for calculation * use CanAccommodate to calculate * remove dead code * address comments * fix Mutex Copying in Protobuf Structs * use constants * fix estimatedSize The calculation for estimatedSize only considers source.EstimatedSize and dest.StorageChange, but omits dest.EstimatedSize. The TaskDestination struct has an EstimatedSize field, which seems to be ignored here. This could lead to an incorrect estimation of the total size of data involved in tasks on a disk. The loop should probably also include estimatedSize += dest.EstimatedSize. * at.assignTaskToDisk(task) * refactoring * Update weed/admin/topology/internal.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * fail fast * fix compilation * Update weed/worker/tasks/erasure_coding/detection.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * indexes for volume and shard locations * dedup with ToVolumeSlots * return an additional boolean to indicate success, or an error * Update abstract_sql_store.go * fix * Update weed/worker/tasks/erasure_coding/detection.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Update weed/admin/topology/task_management.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * faster findVolumeDisk * Update weed/worker/tasks/erasure_coding/detection.go Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * Update weed/admin/topology/storage_slot_test.go Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * refactor * simplify * remove unused GetDiskStorageImpact function * refactor * add comments * Update weed/admin/topology/storage_impact.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Update weed/admin/topology/storage_slot_test.go Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> * Update storage_impact.go * AddPendingTask The unified AddPendingTask function now serves as the single entry point for all task creation, successfully consolidating the previously separate functions while maintaining full functionality and improving code organization. --------- Co-authored-by: gemini-code-assist[bot] <176961590+gemini-code-assist[bot]@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Copilot <175728472+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>	2025-08-03 01:35:38 -07:00