IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Since we usually have 0 records left for repack-deletion,
repacking is essentially used for the purpose of defragmenting
the freelist, we can use the vanilla tdb_repack function.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
The repack operation now mainly defragments the freelist
and does not usually delete any records any more.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Now we usually have records to delete == 0 after the preceding
vacuum run. Anyways, deletion is not a major aspect any more
of the repack run and will vanish soon.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
when bumping skipped, decrement left, so the sum is correct
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Autobuild-User(master): Amitay Isaacs <amitay@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Thu Mar 6 03:32:33 CET 2014 on sn-devel-104
We need to have left records == 0 at the end of the delete list processing.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Failure in traversal of the DB should not
prevent further processing.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
We should try to continue vacuuming as much as possible.
Failure to send records to one lmaster doesn't mean the
others will fail too.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
we know anyways the record to store is empty at this point.
So skip pointer calculations.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
With the new vacuuming, we consider it an error if there are
records left for deletion after processing the various lists.
All records that can be deleted should have been deleted by
tdb_delete calls.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
I.e. no number of records found to delete will trigger the
repacking.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
This describes more precisely what it actually is, nowadays.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
This lets the "fast vacuum" delete queue traverse do the actual work.
On the positive side, we note that this lets the "full vacuuming"
treat the records that have never been migrated with data correctly.
These had previously been added to the delete list for complicated
cross-node deletion instead of directly deleting them.
On the other hand side, there might be a slight overhead
since the records are read again in the delete queu traverse,
but this is OK because this change is in preparation of
untangling the db traverse altogether from the vacuum run,
making it independent.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
This in preparation of modifying the db traverse to
fill the delete_queue that is processed by the fast
vacuum run, instead of filling the same lists as the
fast vacuum run for further processing.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
I.e. when RepackLimit is set to 0, no size of the freelist
should trigger a repack in vacuuming.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
The fast vacuum run may have increased the freelist size.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
Autobuild-User(master): Amitay Isaacs <amitay@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Feb 14 03:15:30 CET 2014 on sn-devel-104
This helps distinguish processes in process list in top, perf, etc.
Signed-off-by: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit 2493f57ce268d6fe7e4c40a87852c347fd60d29e)
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit a62775334aa20d1d850d2df705eb70303b04ac5c)
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit 61264debba58355b9716ac1637fdedef5ed249c8)
Describe the (new) process more precisely.
And mention that is the last step of the vacuuming process
that is performed on the lmaster.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit 06de786c786f1cab4c6721adf47c2cb1e8a72adb)
More precisely, before locally deleting an empty record, that has been
migrated with data and that we are dmaster and laster for, we now perform
the deletion on the other nodes in two steps instead of a single step.
- First send out the list of records to be deleted to all
other nodes with the new RECEIVE_RECORDS control to store
the lmaster's current empty copy.
- Then send those records that could be deleted on all nodes
to all nodes again with the TRY_DELETE_RECORDS control
as before for deletion.
- Finally delete those records locally that were successfully
deleted remotely in the previous step.
This fixes an old race where a recovery that hits the vacuum process
square between the eyes can create gaps in the record's history and
hence let the records resurrect. In the case of the locking.tdb,
that could mean that a file that was already closed, was recorded as
being open and locked again, so samba clients were locked out of that
file until samba was restarted.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit eee23d44b6427be8ab49bbfcee3abb62f37dfcc7)
Now that the nodemap and its talloc children don't hang off of the
delete_records_list talloc context, we can build the nodemap
and earlier, and move the construction of the delete_records_list
to where it is more obvious what it is used for.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit e3740899c1af6962f93c85ad7d1cb71bddce45c6)
This removes the implicit artificial talloc hierarchy and makes the
code easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-By: Amitay Isaacs <amitay@gmail.com>
(This used to be ctdb commit b7c3b8cdf92c597e621e3dae28b110d321de5ea8)
