mirror of
https://github.com/seaweedfs/seaweedfs.git
synced 2026-11-04 11:07:35 +01:00
Chris Lu
836c60b2c9
* topology: refresh EC file and delete counts from heartbeats UpdateEcShards only re-stored a heartbeated EC record when shard membership changed, so FileCount and DeleteCount stayed at whatever the first heartbeat after registration carried, while the volume server reports fresh tombstone counts on every full EC heartbeat. Per-collection object counts and EC vacuum candidate detection read the stored values. Compare the counts per (volume, disk) against the record already in hand and copy them onto the stored record in place, so the refresh raises no new/deleted shard events and rebuilds no maps. A message reporting 0/0 did not count (older volume servers, and the incremental mount message omits the fields), so it keeps the stored values, also across a membership-triggered rewrite. The incremental path's existing branch picks counts up the same way. * topology: swap EC shard records instead of mutating them in place GetEcShards hands out the stored *EcVolumeInfo pointers and releases ecShardsLock; CollectionStatistics, CollectionEcVolumeStats, ToDiskInfo and the master's shard broadcast read fields through them afterwards. The heartbeat count refresh wrote FileCount/DeleteCount into those records under the lock, which the readers never take, so it was a data race and a reader could pair a FileCount from one heartbeat with a DeleteCount from the next. Disk.AddOrUpdateEcShard had the same write on the incremental path, and its shard-bits/ratio merge was already in place. Stored records are now never written after they are published: a count refresh, an incremental merge and a shard delete each build a copy beside the stored record and swap the map entry under ecShardsLock, so a reader holding the old pointer keeps one heartbeat's snapshot. The refresh compares against whatever record is current under the lock, since the incremental path may have replaced it since UpdateEcShards looked. The 0/0-means-not-reported rule is unchanged. The count tests now assert that the stored pointer changes while a previously obtained one still reads its old values, and a -race test runs full and incremental count refreshes against readers; it failed on the previous code and passes now.