1. 06 Jan, 2011 2 commits
  2. 05 Jan, 2011 1 commit
  3. 31 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  4. 29 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  5. 20 Dec, 2010 4 commits
  6. 17 Dec, 2010 2 commits
  7. 16 Dec, 2010 1 commit
    • Michael Hanselmann's avatar
      ensure-dirs: Speed up when using big queues · 196d70fa
      Michael Hanselmann authored
      The “ensure-dirs” script as included in Ganeti 2.3 is very slow when
      working with big queues requiring a change of permissions on many or all
      $ find /var/lib/ganeti/queue/ | wc -l
      Before this change:
      $ time /usr/local/lib/ganeti/ensure-dirs -f
      real    16m4.739s
      While not adressed in this patch, I'd like to record the overall
      ineffiency of the “ensure-dirs” script, even after this change:
      $ time /usr/local/lib/ganeti/ensure-dirs -f
      real    5m57.362s
      $ strace -e clone,execve -f -c /usr/local/lib/ganeti/ensure-dirs -f
      % time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
      ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
       50.08    5.147090          49    104774           clone
       49.92    5.131094          49    104739           execve
      More changes will be needed. Just for comparision, a small Python
      snippet changing permissions on all files (“ensure-dirs” changes the
      owner too):
      $ time python -c 'import os; from ganeti import utils;
      [os.chmod(i, 0644) for i in
      real    0m0.605s
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Hanselmann <hansmi@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
  8. 15 Dec, 2010 3 commits
    • Adeodato Simo's avatar
      Fix gnt-cluster verify with diskless instances · 4f5c2533
      Adeodato Simo authored
      `gnt-cluster verify` was failing with KeyError if there was any
      diskless instance in the cluster. This was because _CollectDiskInfo()
      was not including these instances in the returned dictionary, but they
      were expected to be present in LUVerifyCluster.Exec().
      With this commit, we ensure that the dictionary returned by _CollectDiskInfo
      includes entries for diskless instances as well.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarAdeodato Simo <dato@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
    • Michael Hanselmann's avatar
      jqueue: Keep jobs in “waitlock” while returning to queue · 5fd6b694
      Michael Hanselmann authored
      Iustin Pop reported that a job's file is updated many times while it
      waits for locks held by other thread(s). After an investigation it was
      concluded that the reason was a design decision for job priorities to
      return jobs to the “queued” status if they couldn't acquire all locks.
      Changing a jobs' status or priority requires an update to permanent
      In a high-level view this is what happens:
      1. Mark as waitlock
      2. Write to disk as permanent storage (jobs left in this state by a
         crashing master daemon are resumed on restart)
      3. Wait for lock (assume lock is held by another thread)
      4. Mark as queued
      5. Write to disk again
      6. Return to workerpool
      Another option originally discussed was to leave the job in the
      “waitlock” status. Ignoring priority changes, this is what would happen:
      1. If not in waitlock
      1.1. Assert state == queued
      1.2. Mark as waitlock
      1.3. Set start_timestamp
      1.4. Write to disk as permanent storage
      3. Wait for locks (assume lock is held by another thread)
      4. Leave in waitlock
      5. Return to workerpool
      Now let's assume the lock is released by the other thread:
      3. Wait for locks and get them
      4. Assert state == waitlock
      5. Set state to running
      6. Set exec_timestamp
      7. Write to disk
      As this change reduces the number of writes from two per lock acquire
      attempt to two per opcode and one per priority increase (as happens
      after 24 acquire attempts (see mcpu._CalculateLockAttemptTimeouts) until
      the highest priority is reached), here's the patch to implement it.
      Unittests are updated.
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Hanselmann <hansmi@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
    • Michael Hanselmann's avatar
      Improve jqueue unittests · ebb2a2a3
      Michael Hanselmann authored
      - Verify job file updates
      - Ensure queue lock is released while executing opcode
      Signed-off-by: default avatarMichael Hanselmann <hansmi@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
  9. 14 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  10. 09 Dec, 2010 5 commits
  11. 02 Dec, 2010 1 commit
  12. 01 Dec, 2010 5 commits
  13. 30 Nov, 2010 3 commits
  14. 25 Nov, 2010 1 commit
  15. 24 Nov, 2010 3 commits
  16. 19 Nov, 2010 5 commits
  17. 18 Nov, 2010 1 commit
    • Iustin Pop's avatar
      Reinstall instance: disallow offline secondaries · 9aacb199
      Iustin Pop authored
      Currently, reinstallation of a DRBD instance with the secondary node offline does:
      node1# gnt-instance reinstall -f instance1
      Waiting for job 139053 for instance1...
      Thu Nov 18 01:36:09 2010  - WARNING: Could not prepare block device disk/0 on node node3 (is_primary=False, pass=1): Node is marked offline
      Thu Nov 18 01:36:09 2010  - WARNING: Could not shutdown block device disk/0 on node node3: Node is marked offline
      Job 139053 for instance1 has failed: Failure: command execution error:
      Disk consistency error
      Since this fails anyway, let's check the secondary nodes, thus
      preventing any modifications to the instance (e.g. OS type change):
      node1# gnt-instance reinstall -f instance1
      Waiting for job 139058 for instance1...
      Job 139058 for instance1 has failed: Failure: prerequisites not met for this operation:
      error type: wrong_state, error details:
      Instance secondary node offline, cannot reinstall: node3
      The patch needs modifications to the _CheckNodeOnline function, in order
      to display meaningful messages ("Can't use offline node" would be very
      confusing for an instance reinstall, since we didn't select a node
      Signed-off-by: default avatarIustin Pop <iustin@google.com>
      Reviewed-by: default avatarRené Nussbaumer <rn@google.com>