LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for XROOTD-DEV Archives


XROOTD-DEV Archives

XROOTD-DEV Archives


XROOTD-DEV@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

XROOTD-DEV Home

XROOTD-DEV Home

XROOTD-DEV  January 2011

XROOTD-DEV January 2011

Subject:

Re: Proposed improvements for cmsd protocol

From:

"Andrew Hanushevsky" <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

6 Jan 2011 17:48:42 -0800Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:48:42 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (118 lines)

Hi Brian,

I took a very deliberate look at the proposal. Well, oddly, it looks like 
cmsd is about 95% already there and to get it to 100% shouldn't really 
require a protocol change. So, let's take this one point at a time:

1)      The cmsd is already capable of handling servers that front a common 
filesystem. That's what "role proxy" helps to do. Does it work? Well, 
almost. The non-query feature was never implemented because the way people 
used "proxy" didn't require it. So, with a bit of tweaking you will be able 
to front a shared filesystem with a proxy cluster and that cluster will 
never ask whether you have a file or not. It will simply assume you do and 
if you don't it won't matter because nobody else does.



2)      I appreciate the idea of improving the name caching but the 
particular set of algorithms used to cache entries in the current scheme 
each run in constant time (that includes cache management which is actually 
a much bigger overhead item). I am not at all sure that creating an inode 
structure will provide any significant improvement and, in fact, because the 
data structure is more complicated, will likely make it less efficient. Let's 
say I'm highly skeptical.



Now, if point (2) is actually driven by point (1), which is your desire to 
minimize the number of queries to a shared filesystem, then there are 
actually better ways of doing this in the redirector itself. For instance, 
when dealing with shared filesystem there is no reason why the redirector 
can bypass querying servers and should be able to do the query itself. In 
fact, we will make this more convenient (it's already possible) largely to 
improve the efficiency of firewalled servers relative to meta-managers.



If the above is not the case, then I'm somewhat at a loss about what problem 
is being solved here. Surely, the hit rate is much higher than the miss rate 
in any properly functioning analysis scenario (in fact, the expected hit 
rate should be 100%). Under that assumption, trying to optimize negative 
responses is not a particularly effective strategy. On the other hand, the 
following sentence in your mail file is incomplete:



"Let's say a client is processing directory /a/{1,2,3,4}.  The first call 
(prepare or open) will be to /a/1.  If a site doesn't have anything in 
directory /a/, or if /a/ doesn't exist, the dataserver will respond 
with -EEXIST,/a.  Then, when the client requests /a/2, any namespaces 
without the /a directory will"...



So, perhaps I'm missing something because I don't know what the "will" will 
be :-)



Andy



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Bockelman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "xrootd-dev" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 8:31 AM
Subject: Proposed improvements for cmsd protocol


Hi folks,

I have two proposed improvements for the cmsd protocol.  Both are designed 
to help the scalability of the global namespace project:

1) Namespace IDs: Used by data servers which share a complete namespace 
(i.e., serve to load-balance access for an external filesystem).  In such a 
case, one only needs to query a single server for file information as all 
will have the same response.  Currently, cmsd will send a query to all 
servers.  For this case, I propose the data servers will all share a 
namespace ID, a unique string identifier given at configuration time.  They 
can inform their manager/supervisor of this ID, and the manager/supervisor 
will use this to minimize repeated queries.  Obviously, this is just an 
optimization - if two data servers are assigned to different supervisors, it 
will not apply.
  - Implementation: Add a char* member to CmsLoginData to allow the 
namespace to be specified, and pass this information to the Link.  This 
char* will be treated as the namespace key.  Then, keep a separate bitmask 
in XrdCmsCluster for namespaces IDs.  Upon login, the XrdCmsNode will have a 
namespace ID assigned to it (based on the namespace key).  For any 
broadcast, keep track of the namespace IDs used when looping through 
possible nodes, and skip nodes if their namespace ID has already been used.
  - The XrdCmsCache object would then operate on namespaces, not nodes.
2) Hierarchical caching:  Right now, the cache in a manager/supervisor is a 
hash table based keyed by the LFN.  Since access patterns (especially in 
CMS) tend to correlate with the filesystem hierarchy, I propose to convert 
the cache to an inode-like structure.  If a disk server does not have a 
file, it will still reply with -EEXIST, but also return the most specific 
missing directory.  The negative response is given to the cache and used to 
better filter out namespaces to query.
  - Let's say a client is processing directory /a/{1,2,3,4}.  The first call 
(prepare or open) will be to /a/1.  If a site doesn't have anything in 
directory /a/, or if /a/ doesn't exist, the dataserver will respond 
with -EEXIST,/a.  Then, when the client requests /a/2, any namespaces 
without the /a directory will
  - Implementation: I *think* this can be done mostly by keeping the 
negative directory answers in the XrdCmsPList and having Find filter out 
namespaces appropriately.  XrdCmsPList would be mostly rewritten, but it's 
only going to cache responses and never trigger any queries.  Hence, it 
should be simpler than XrdCmsCache, although it will need a new timer for 
expiring entries.

Thoughts?  It's not trivial work, but I think the approach is correct.

Brian 



Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use