hey Gal and Eric,
in today's standup, we discussed the version of our apache arrow
submodule. it's currently pinned at 6.0.1, which was tagged in nov.
2021. the centos9 builds are using the system package
libarrow-devel-9.0.0. arrow's upstream recently tagged an 11.0.0
release
as far as i know, there still aren't any system packages for ubuntu,
so we're likely to be stuck with the submodule for quite a while. how
do guys want to handle these updates? is it worth trying to update
before the reef release?
For developers submitting jobs using teuthology, we now have
recommendations on what priority level to use:
https://docs.ceph.com/docs/master/dev/developer_guide/#testing-priority
--
Patrick Donnelly, Ph.D.
He / Him / His
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat Sunnyvale, CA
GPG: 19F28A586F808C2402351B93C3301A3E258DD79D
Hello
We are planning to start QE validation release next week.
If you have PRs that are to be part of it, please let us know by
adding "needs-qa" for 'quincy' milestone ASAP.
Thx
YuriW
Hi Folks,
I'm Kevin Zhao from Linaro and cc'd Qinfei Liu from Huawei, he is the
author of this PR. We are working on building and supporting Ceph on
openEuler OS.
OpenEuler (https://www.openeuler.org/en/) is now a very active and popular
operating system community. It is based on RPM and all the packages are
built from source. openEuler now attracts a lot of end users and
developers, especially in China. Actually some companies already have some
trial deployment clusters for Ceph on openEuler.
The PR Link: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/50182
So from the variety of the Ceph upstream, it's better to support openEuler
build in the community. So we have proposed the PR here and hope to see the
feedback. And also want to know the *process for Ceph to support a real new
operation system*.
One thing I want to mention is that we have submitted the patch to Ceph
16.2.7 brance first because in OpenEuler 22.03-LTS, the Ceph version is
16.2.7, and we will also submit another PR to the Main branch.
Hope to hear from the community's feedback soon, thanks in advance!
--
*Best Regards*
*Kevin Zhao*
Tech Lead, LDCG Cloud Infra & Storage
Linaro Vertical Technologies
IRC(freenode): kevinz
Slack(kubernetes.slack.com): kevinz
kevin.zhao(a)linaro.org | Mobile/Direct/Wechat: +86 18818270915
reviving this old thread about http clients after reading through
https://github.com/RobertLeahy/ASIO-cURL and discovering the
"multi-socket flavor" of the libcurl-multi API documented in
https://curl.se/libcurl/c/libcurl-multi.html
rgw's existing RGWHTTPManager uses the older flavor of libcurl-multi,
which requires a background thread that polls libcurl for io and
completions. this new flavor allows us to do all of the polling and
timers asynchronously with asio, and only call into libcurl for
non-blocking io when the sockets are ready to read/write. getting rid
of the background thread makes it much easier to integrate with asio
applications, because it removes many complications around locking and
object lifetimes
i experimented with this multi-socket API by building my own asio
integration in https://github.com/cbodley/ceph/pull/6. there are two
main reasons i find this especially interesting:
1) we've been doing some prototyping for multisite sync with asio's
c++20 coroutines. RGWHTTPManager only supports the
optional_yield-style coroutines, so we were talking about using beast
for this initial prototype. however, i listed several of beast's
missing features earlier in this thread (mainly timeouts and
connection pooling), so this new curl client could be a much better
fit here
2) curl can be built with HTTP/3 support, and that's what we've been
using to test rgw's prototype frontend in
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/48178. we need a multiplexing client
like libcurl-multi in order to test QUIC's stream multiplexing. and
because the QUIC library depends on BoringSSL, this HTTP/3-enabled
version of curl can't be linked against rgw (which requires OpenSSL)
for RGWHTTPManager
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:24 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:41 AM Yuval Lifshitz <ylifshit(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Casey,
> > When it comes to "dechnical debt", the main question is what is the ongoing cost of not making this change?
> > Do we see memory allocation and copy into RGWHTTPArgs as noticeable perf issue? Maybe there is a simpler way to resolve this specific issue?
>
> historically, we have seen very bad behavior from tcmalloc at high
> thread counts in rgw, and we've been making general efforts both to
> reduce allocations and the number of threads required. i don't think
> anyone has tried to measure the impact of RGWHTTPArgs itself, but i do
> see it's use of map<string, string> as low hanging fruit. and because
> this piece is on rgw's http server side, replacing this map wouldn't
> require any of the client stuff described above
>
> > It looks like the list of things to do to achieve feature parity with libcurl is substantial.
>
> i agree! i wanted to start by documenting where the gaps are, to help
> us understand the scope of a project here
>
> even without dropping libcurl, i think there's a lot of potential
> cleanup in the several layers (rgw_http_client, rgw_rest_client,
> rgw_rest_conn, rgw_cr_rest) between libcurl and multisite. for
> multisite in general, i would really like to see it adopt similar
> async primitives to the rest of the rgw codebase so that we can share
> more code
>
> > Is there a desire by the beast maintainers to add these capabilities?
>
> beast has generally positioned itself as a low-level http protocol
> library, to serve as building blocks for higher-level client and
> server libraries/applications. the http ecosystem is vast, so it makes
> sense to limit the scope of any individual library. libcurl is
> enormous, yet still only covers the client side
>
> though with the addition of the tcp_stream in boost 1.70
> (https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/release_not…),
> beast did take a step toward this higher level of abstraction. it's
> definitely worth discussing whether additional features like client
> connection pooling would be in scope for the project. it's also worth
> researching what other asio-compatible http client libraries are out
> there
>
>
> > Yuval
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:34 PM Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> dear Adam and list,
> >>
> >> aside from rgw's frontend, which is the server side of http, we also
> >> have plenty of http client code that sends http requests to other
> >> servers. the biggest user of the client is multisite sync, which uses
> >> http to read replication logs and fetch objects from other zones. all
> >> of this http client code is based on libcurl, and uses its 'multi api'
> >> to provide an async interface with a background thread that polls for
> >> completions
> >>
> >> it's hard to beat libcurl for stability and features, but there has
> >> also been interest in using asio+beast for the client ever since we
> >> added it to the frontend. benefits there would include a nicer c++
> >> interface, better integration with the asio async model (we do
> >> currently have wrappers for libcurl, but they're specific to
> >> coroutines), and the potential to use custom allocators to avoid most
> >> of the per-request allocations
> >>
> >>
> >> to help with a comparison against beast, these are the features of
> >> libcurl that we rely on:
> >>
> >> - asynchronous using the 'multi api' and a background thread
> >> (https://everything.curl.dev/libcurl/drive/multi)
> >> - connection pooling (see https://everything.curl.dev/libcurl/connectionreuse)
> >> - ssl context and optional certificate verification
> >> - connect/request timeouts
> >> - rate limits
> >>
> >> see RGWHTTPClient::init_request() in rgw_http_client.cc for all of the
> >> specific CURLOPT_ features we're using now
> >>
> >> also noteworthy is curl's support for http/1.1, http/2, and http/3
> >> (https://everything.curl.dev/libcurl-http/versions)
> >>
> >>
> >> asio does not have connection pooling or connect timeouts (though it
> >> has the components necessary to build them), and beast only supports
> >> http/1.1. i think everything else in the list is covered:
> >>
> >> ssl support comes from boost::asio::ssl and ssl_stream
> >>
> >> there's a tcp_stream class
> >> (https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/ref/boost__…)
> >> that wraps a tcp socket and adds rate limiting and timeouts. we use
> >> that in the frontend, though we're tracking a performance regression
> >> related to its timeouts in https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/52333
> >>
> >> there's a very nice http::fields class
> >> (https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/libs/beast/doc/html/beast/ref/boost__…)
> >> for headers that has custom allocator support. there's an
> >> 'http_server_fast' example at
> >> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/libs/beast/example/http/server/fast/h…
> >> that uses the custom allocator in
> >> https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_70_0/libs/beast/example/http/server/fast/f….
> >> i'd love to see something like that replace our use of map<string,
> >> string> for headers in RGWHTTPArgs during request processing
> >>
> >>
> >> for connection pooling with asio, i did explore this for a while with
> >> Abhishek in https://github.com/cbodley/nexus/tree/wip-connection-pool/include/nexus/htt….
> >> it had connect timeouts and some test coverage in
> >> https://github.com/cbodley/nexus/blob/wip-connection-pool/test/http/test_co…,
> >> but needs more work. for example, each connection_pool is constructed
> >> with one hostname/port. there also needs to be a map of these pools,
> >> keyed either on hostname/port or resolved address, so we can cache
> >> connections for any url the client requests
> >>
> >> i was also imagining higher-level interfaces like http::async_get()
> >> (and head/put/post/etc) that would hide the use of connection pooling
> >> entirely, and use beast's request/response concepts to write the
> >> request and read its response. this is also a good place to implement
> >> retries. i explored this idea in a separate repo here
> >> https://github.com/cbodley/requests/tree/master/include/requests
> >>
> >> with asio, we can attach a connection pooling service as an
> >> io_context::service that gets created automatically on first use, and
> >> saved over the lifetime of the io_context. the application would have
> >> the option to configure it, but doesn't have to know anything about it
> >> otherwise
> >>
> >> overloading those high-level interfaces could also provide a good
> >> abstraction to support http 2 and 3, where their connection pools
> >> would just have one connection per address, and each request would
> >> open its own stream
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dev mailing list -- dev(a)ceph.io
> >> To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave(a)ceph.io
> >>
Hi Ceph developers,
The March CDM is coming up this Wednesday, March 1st @ 2:00 UTC. See more
meeting details below.
Please add any topics you'd like to discuss to the agenda:
https://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/CDM_01-MAR-2023
Meeting link:
https://bluejeans.com/908675367
Time conversions:
UTC: Wednesday, January 4, 2:00 UTC
Mountain View, CA, US: Tuesday, January 3, 18:00 PST
Phoenix, AZ, US: Tuesday, January 3, 19:00 MST
Denver, CO, US: Tuesday, January 3, 19:00 MST
Huntsville, AL, US: Tuesday, January 3, 20:00 CST
Raleigh, NC, US: Tuesday, January 3, 21:00 EST
London, England: Wednesday, January 4, 2:00 GMT
Paris, France: Wednesday, January 4, 3:00 CET
Helsinki, Finland: Wednesday, January 4, 4:00 EET
Tel Aviv, Israel: Wednesday, January 4, 4:00 IST
Pune, India: Wednesday, January 4, 7:30 IST
Brisbane, Australia: Wednesday, January 4, 12:00 AEST
Singapore, Asia: Wednesday, January 4, 10:00 +08
Auckland, New Zealand: Wednesday, January 4, 15:00 NZDT
--
Laura Flores
She/Her/Hers
Software Engineer, Ceph Storage <https://ceph.io>
Chicago, IL
lflores(a)ibm.com | lflores(a)redhat.com <lflores(a)redhat.com>
M: +17087388804
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 2:15 PM Patrick Schlangen <patrick(a)schlangen.me> wrote:
>
> Hi Ilya,
>
> > Am 26.02.2023 um 14:05 schrieb Ilya Dryomov <idryomov(a)gmail.com>:
> >
> > Isn't OpenSSL 1.0 long out of support? I'm not sure if extending
> > librados API to support a workaround for something that went EOL over
> > three years ago is worth it.
>
> fair point. However, as long as ceph still supports compiling against OpenSSL 1.0 and has special code paths to initialize OpenSSL for versions <= 1.0, I think this should be fixed. The other option would be to remove OpenSSL 1.0 support completely.
>
> What do you think?
Removing OpenSSL 1.0 support is fine with me but it would need a wider
discussion. I'm CCing the development list.
Thanks,
Ilya
