During expansion we need to validate if
- new deployment is expanded with newer constraints
- existing deployment is expanded with older constraints
- multiple server pools rejected if they have different
deploymentID and distribution algo
Current implementation requires server pools to have
same erasure stripe sizes, to facilitate same SLA
and expectations.
This PR allows server pools to be variadic, i.e they
do not have to be same erasure stripe sizes - instead
they should have SLA for parity ratio.
If the parity ratio cannot be guaranteed by the new
server pool, the deployment is rejected i.e server
pool expansion is not allowed.
It is possible in situations when server was deployed
in asymmetric configuration in the past such as
```
minio server ~/fs{1...4}/disk{1...5}
```
Results in setDriveCount of 10 in older releases
but with fairly recent releases we have moved to
having server affinity which means that a set drive
count ascertained from above config will be now '4'
While the object layer make sure that we honor
`format.json` the storageClass configuration however
was by mistake was using the global value obtained
by heuristics. Which leads to prematurely using
lower parity without being requested by the an
administrator.
This PR fixes this behavior.
For example `{1...17}/{1...52}` symmetrical
distribution of drives cannot be obtained
- Because 17 is a prime number
- Is not divisible by any pre-defined setCounts i.e
from 1 to 16
it is possible in many screnarios that even
if the divisible value is optimal, we may
end up with uneven distribution due to number
of nodes present in the configuration.
added code allow for affinity towards various
ellipses to figure out optimal value across
ellipses such that we can always reach a
symmetric value automatically.
Fixes#9416
Too many deployments come up with an odd number
of hosts or drives, to facilitate even distribution
among those setups allow for odd and prime numbers
based packs.
Currently the code assumed some orthogonal requirements
which led situations where when we have a setup where
we have let's say for example 168 drives, the final
set_drive_count chosen was 14. Indeed 168 drives are
divisible by 12 but this wasn't allowed due to an
unexpected requirement to have 12 to be a perfect modulo
of 14 which is not possible. This assumption was incorrect.
This PR fixes this old assumption properly, also adds
few tests and some negative tests as well. Improvements
are seen in error messages as well.
Fixes scenario where zones are appropriately
handled, along with supporting overriding set
count. The new fix also ensures that we handle
the various setup types properly.
Update documentation to properly indicate the
behavior.
Fixes#8750
Co-authored-by: Nitish Tiwari <nitish@minio.io>
Changes in IP underneath are dynamic in replica sets
with multiple tenants, so deploying in that fashion
will not work until we wait for atleast one participatory
server to be local.
This PR also ensures that multi-tenant zone expansion also
works in replica set k8s deployments.
Introduces a new ENV `KUBERNETES_REPLICA_SET` check to call
appropriate code paths.
Fixes an issue reported by @klauspost and @vadmeste
This PR also allows users to expand their clusters
from single node XL deployment to distributed mode.
This PR implements locking from a global entity into
a more localized set level entity, allowing for locks
to be held only on the resources which are writing
to a collection of disks rather than a global level.
In this process this PR also removes the top-level
limit of 32 nodes to an unlimited number of nodes. This
is a precursor change before bring in bucket expansion.
This change is related to larger config migration PR
change, this is a first stage change to move our
configs to `cmd/config/` - divided into its subsystems
This PR implements an object layer which
combines input erasure sets of XL layers
into a unified namespace.
This object layer extends the existing
erasure coded implementation, it is assumed
in this design that providing > 16 disks is
a static configuration as well i.e if you started
the setup with 32 disks with 4 sets 8 disks per
pack then you would need to provide 4 sets always.
Some design details and restrictions:
- Objects are distributed using consistent ordering
to a unique erasure coded layer.
- Each pack has its own dsync so locks are synchronized
properly at pack (erasure layer).
- Each pack still has a maximum of 16 disks
requirement, you can start with multiple
such sets statically.
- Static sets set of disks and cannot be
changed, there is no elastic expansion allowed.
- Static sets set of disks and cannot be
changed, there is no elastic removal allowed.
- ListObjects() across sets can be noticeably
slower since List happens on all servers,
and is merged at this sets layer.
Fixes#5465Fixes#5464Fixes#5461Fixes#5460Fixes#5459Fixes#5458Fixes#5460Fixes#5488Fixes#5489Fixes#5497Fixes#5496
Harshavardhana