[Lustre-devel] Moving forward on Quotas

[Jeff Bonwick <Jeff.Bonwick@sun.com>]

I'd suggest working with Matt Ahrens on this.

Jeff

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:41AM +0800, Peter Braam wrote:
> Jeff - 
> 
> could you get in touch with Nikita and Ricardo and assist them with a draft
> of quota design for the DMU.  Nikita has some interesting API proposals, but
> there are some pretty deep ZFS issues involved where help would be welcome,
> as far as I can see.
> 
> Just as a heads up, quota in systems like Lustre is quite a difficult issue,
> as many servers contribute to quota usage and this needs "acquire", and
> "release" of quota in reasonable chunks to avoid the server server protocol
> getting too chatty.
> 
> Thank you for your help!
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> On 5/28/08 10:54 PM, "Nikita Danilov" <Nikita.Danilov@Sun.COM> wrote:
> 
> > Ricardo M. Correia writes:
> >> On Ter, 2008-05-27 at 07:28 +0800, Peter Braam wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Going aside, if I were designing quota from the scratch right now, I
> >>>> would implement it completely inside of Lustre. All that is needed for
> >>>> such an implementation is a set of call-backs that local file-system
> >>>> invokes when it allocates/frees blocks (or inodes) for a given
> >>>> object. Lustre would use these call-backs to transactionally update
> >>>> local quota in its own format. That would save us a lot of hassle we
> >>>> have dealing with the changing kernel quota interfaces, uid re-mappings,
> >>>> and subtle differences between quota implementations on a different file
> >>>> systems.
> >>> 
> >>> ======> IMPORTANT: get in touch with Jeff Bonwick now, let's get quota
> >>> implemented in this way in DMU then.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I think this was proposed by Alex before, but AFAIU the conclusion is
> >> that this was not possible to do with ZFS (or at least, not easy to do).
> >> 
> >> The problem is that ZFS uses delayed allocations, i.e., allocations
> >> occur long after a transaction group has been closed, and therefore we
> >> can't transactionally keep track of allocated space because by the time
> >> the callbacks were called we are not allowed to write to the transaction
> >> group anymore, since another 2 txgs could have been opened already.
> > 
> > But that problem has to be solved anyway to implement per-user quotas
> > for ZFS, correct?
> > 
> > One possible solution I see is to use something like ZIL to log
> > operations in the context of current transaction group. This log can be
> > replayed during mount to update quota file.
> > 
> >> 
> >> Since this couldn't be done transactionally, if the node crashes, there
> >> would be no way of knowing how many blocks had been allocated on the
> >> latest (actually, the latest 2) committed transaction groups..
> >> 
> >> Regards,
> >> Ricardo
> > 
> > Nikita.
> 
>