Hi Cephers,
These are the minutes of today's meeting (quicker than usual since some CLT
members were at Ceph Days NYC):
- *[Yuri] Upcoming Releases:*
- Pending PRs for Quincy
- Sepia Lab still absorbing the PR queue after the past issues
- [Ernesto] Github started sending dependabot alerts to devels
(previously it was only sent to org admins)
-
https://github.blog/2023-01-17-dependabot-alerts-are-now-visible-to-more-de…
- Most don't necessarily involve a risk (e.g.: Javascript dependency
only exploitable in a back-end/node.js server)...
- ... but it might still cause some unnecessary concern among devs/users
regarding Ceph security status
- Current list of vulnerable dependencies:
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/security/dependabot
- 40% are Dashboard Javascript ones (most could be dismissed since only
impact when used on node.js apps)
- Remaining ones are:
- Python: requirements.txt (not relevant since Python package versions
change with every distro and we assume distro-maintainers will fix those)
- It might become more relevant when we start packaging Python deps (
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47501/)
- Golang: "/examples/rgw" path (Casey opened
https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/58828, but maybe we should just dismiss
the alert?)
- [Ernesto] Enabling Github Auto-merge feature in the Ceph repo
-
https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/i…
- Use case:
- There's a PR with approvals but flaky CI tests (API, make check, ...)
(example: https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/50201)
- We could retrigger tests and come back to the PR page multiple times
until all tests pass...
- ... Or we just click the "Auto-merge" button, fill out the merge
message as usual, and let Github merge it when the CI tests pass.
- It'd reduce cognitive load, especially with small PRs (docs, backport
PRs) where the overhead of the PR process is more noticeable.
- There's still one issue:
- Keeping Redmine in sync with Github
- It could be done: when clicking the Auto-merge or still requiring
reviewers to poll the PR until passed and then updating Redmine (not ideal)
- A Github action that update a tracker when Github merges the PR would
be very useful
- Yuri/Ilya: discussion around backport requirement reverse order
(needs-qa label vs. approvals vs. CI tests passing).
- Greg pointed out the risks of auto-merge merging PRs with patches
submitted after passing requirements or approvals. Auto-merge status should
be reset on new commits.
- Decision: not to enable it.
- Yuri suggested auto-labeling PRs with passing CI, so they better know
when to start QA testing.
- Separate discussion on CI flakiness & stability and lack of clear
points of contact (Kefu and David did that). For unit tests it's clear that
affected teams should do that, but for infrastructure issues there's still
a vacuum.
Kind Regards,
Ernesto
there are some upcoming changes to the rgw qa suite [1] and its
accompanying s3-tests [2] and ragweed repos [3] that, once merged,
will cause earlier ceph-ci builds to fail the rgw suite
this just means that ceph-ci branches and suite-branches will need to
rebase on main after these merges, so plan accordingly. we don't
usually announce these changes, but with the reef freeze on the
horizon i don't want to delay anyone's testing
[1] https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/49950
[2] https://github.com/ceph/s3-tests/pull/487
[3] https://github.com/ceph/ragweed/pull/26
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 8:48 PM Feng, Hualong <hualong.feng(a)intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:11 PM
> > To: Feng, Hualong <hualong.feng(a)intel.com>
> > Cc: Mark Kogan <mkogan(a)redhat.com>; Tang, Guifeng
> > <guifeng.tang(a)intel.com>; Ma, Jianpeng <jianpeng.ma(a)intel.com>;
> > dev(a)ceph.io
> > Subject: Re: RGW encrypt is implemented by qat batch and queue mode
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 9:31 PM Feng, Hualong <hualong.feng(a)intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Casey Bodley <cbodley(a)redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2022 10:20 PM
> > > > To: Feng, Hualong <hualong.feng(a)intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Mark Kogan <mkogan(a)redhat.com>; Tang, Guifeng
> > > > <guifeng.tang(a)intel.com>; Ma, Jianpeng <jianpeng.ma(a)intel.com>;
> > > > dev(a)ceph.io
> > > > Subject: Re: RGW encrypt is implemented by qat batch and queue mode
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 4:06 AM Feng, Hualong
> > > > <hualong.feng(a)intel.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Mark, Casey
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you spare some time to help review these two PRs or add them
> > > > > to
> > > > your plan?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The PR link is below:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47040
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47845
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I reimplemented the qat encryption plugin. Since the existing RGW
> > > > encryption uses 4KB as an encryption unit, the performance is poor
> > > > when the qat batch interface is not used. Now I have reimplemented
> > > > the encryption plug-in using the qat batch interface, which is done
> > > > in two PRs. PR47040 is used to realize that when the encrypted data
> > > > block is larger than 128KB, 32 pieces of 4K data are taken out for a
> > > > batch submission each time. PR47845 is based on PR47040, each time
> > > > the encrypted data block is smaller than 128KB, it is put into a
> > > > buffer queue first, and when 32 pieces of 4K data or timeout can be
> > reached, a batch submission is performed.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The performance result is below, and moreover, the higher the CPU
> > > > > usage,
> > > > the more obvious the effect of qat.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From the flame graph, the proportion of the encryption plug-in
> > > > implemented by qat in the RGWPutObj::execute function is lower than
> > > > that of the encryption plug-in implemented by isal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > -Hualong
> > > >
> > > > hey Hualong et al, (cc dev list)
> > > >
> > > > thanks for reaching out, this really helps me understand what those
> > > > PRs are trying to accomplish
> > > >
> > > > in general i'm concerned about the need for threads, locking, and
> > > > buffering down in the crypto plugins. ideally this stuff would be
> > > > under the application's control. in radosgw, we've been trying to
> > > > eliminate any blocking waits on condition variables in our i/o path
> > > > now that requests are handled in coroutines - instead of blocking an
> > > > entire thread, we just suspend the coroutine and run others in the
> > > > meantime
> > >
> > > I agree with your view, but now crypto function calls are still using the
> > synchronous interface. If we don't want the plugin to contain condition
> > variables, we need to implement the plugin in an asynchronous way and
> > provide an asynchronous interface. This requires the RGW to call the
> > interface to make changes.
> > >
> > > And the number of QAT instances is difficult to keep consistent with the
> > number of threads. The number of QAT instance(hardware resources) is
> > limited. When the number of instances is less than the number of threads, we
> > still need to wait for the free instance. If the asynchronous interface is used,
> > we can use the queue as a buffer to avoid blocking the current thread while
> > waiting for a free instance.
> > >
> > > If it is still a synchronous interface, there is no good way to eliminate the
> > condition variable. Do you have a better suggestion here?
> >
> > below you suggest that we could fall back to CPU processing for small object
> > uploads. could we use that same fallback in the cases where we'd otherwise
> > have to block waiting for a QAT instance?
> >
> > >
> > > > seeing that graph by object size, my first impression was that
> > > > radosgw should be using bigger buffers.
> > >
> > > Use a bigger buffer? You mean we should change the encrypted
> > CHUNK_SIZE, from the current 4096B, to a bigger one?
> > > Or other buffers?
> >
> > sorry not the CHUNK_SIZE, but the total amount of data we can feed into QAT
> > at a time. i see in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47040
> > that you've found the loop in AES_256_CBC::cbc_transform() which breaks
> > the input into CHUNK_SIZEd pieces, and you converted that loop into a single
> > batch() call - that part looks great
> >
> > if each call to cbc_transform() is getting large enough buffers, it could acquire
> > exclusive access to one QAT instance, feed all of its data through it, then
> > release the instance back to a pool. for a large object workload it seems like
> > this strategy would best utilize the hardware resources, because you never
> > have to coordinate a single batch across several threads. you just need to
> > acquire/release access to a QAT instance every 4MB, which you can use for
> > 32 batches (assuming batch size is 32*4k=128k?) at a time
> >
> > >
> > > > GetObj and PutObj are both reading data in 4MB chunks, maybe we can
> > > > find a way to use the qat batch interfaces within those chunks?
> > >
> > > Yes, they are both reading data in 4MB.
> > > But when the object we put is larger than 4MB, the data block size when
> > calling the encryption function is not necessarily 4MB.
> > >
> > > Such as the below that put an object, but the data block size that the
> > > encryption function using is 64KB PUT /examplebucket/chunkObject.txt
> > >
> > > content-encoding:aws-chunked
> > > content-length:66824
> > > host:s3.amazonaws.com
> > > x-amz-content-sha256:STREAMING-AWS4-HMAC-SHA256-PAYLOAD
> > > x-amz-date:20130524T000000Z
> > > x-amz-decoded-content-length:66560
> > > x-amz-storage-class:REDUCED_REDUNDANCY
> > > Authorization:AWS4-HMAC-SHA256
> > >
> > Credential=AKIAIOSFODNN7EXAMPLE/20130524/us-east-1/s3/aws4_request
> > ,Sig
> > >
> > nedHeaders=content-encoding;content-length;host;x-amz-content-sha256;x
> > > -amz-date;x-amz-decoded-content-length;x-amz-storage-class,Signature=4
> > >
> > f232c4386841ef735655705268965c44a0e4690baa4adea153f7db9fa80a0a9
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > 10000;chunk-signature=ad80c730a21e5b8d04586a2213dd63b9a0e99e0e230
> > 7b0ad
> > > e35a65485a288648
> > > <65536-bytes>
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > 10000;chunk-signature=ad80c730a21e5b8d04586a2213dd63b9a0e99e0e230
> > 7b0ad
> > > e35a65485a288648
> > > <65536-bytes>
> >
> > are you sure that this http-level chunking has an effect on the buffer sizes that
> > encryption sees? it may cause the buffers to be segmented at 64k, but
> > encryption and decryption both call bufferlist::c_str() to reallocate a single
> > contiguous buffer:
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/9aa8bed/src/rgw/rgw_crypt.cc#L490
> >
> > so i'd still expect this loop in RGWPutObj::execute() to read up to
> > rgw_max_chunk_size at a time:
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/blob/fc01eeb7/src/rgw/rgw_op.cc#L4111-L41
> > 41
> >
> > if there are cases where the RGWPutObj_BlockEncrypt filter isn't getting large
> > enough buffers, we can use the same strategy as
> > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/21479, where we improved compression
> > ratios by adding a buffering filter in front
> >
> > >
> > > > that could avoid the need for cross-thread queues and
> > > > synchronization. compared to your approach in
> > > > https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47845, i imagine this would show
> > > > less of a benefit for small object uploads, but more of a benefit
> > > > for the big ones. do you think this could work?
> > >
> > > If in order to avoid the need for cross-thread queues and show less of a
> > benefit for small object uploads, we can turn small objects to CPU processing.
> > Only for big object, we use QAT batch api.
> > >
> > > Hi Casey
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply. The detail message and some question are above.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Hualong
> > >
> >
> > all of my feedback here relates to large objects, though you've really focused
> > on small objects in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47845.
> > for small object workloads, i do agree that the queuing and thread
> > synchronization is necessary to take advantage of this batching
> >
> > it's just hard for me to tell whether that extra complexity is worth it. we've
> > tried to minimize any synchronization between rgw's requests so that we're
> > able to scale to thousands of concurrent requests/connections. at scale, i'd
> > worry that lock contention here would negate some of the gains from QAT
> >
> > in workloads with a mix of small and large objects, i think we'd make the best
> > use of QAT if we applied it to the larger objects (>= 128k?) where we can use
> > it most efficiently
>
> Hi Casey
>
> About the PR https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47040. I have changed the code to be coroutine,
> so it is able to scale without lock contention. And I restrict the use of qat only when object>64K so that
> we can use it most efficiently.
>
> In the QAT part code, I use two async_* interface: one used to get instance, another one used to submit perform request.
> And in rgw code, in order to get `yield` parameter in crypto plugin, I add extra parameter in all process function.
>
> Can you help to review, is the coroutine mode I changed feasible?
thanks Hualong,
the coroutine changes are nicely done; however i still have concerns
about the overall design:
1. these crypto plugins are meant to be common to all ceph components.
rgw may be the only user now, but this reliance on a coroutine-based
runtime could make the plugin unusable elsewhere
the `optional_yield` wrapper (which may or may not contain a real
coroutine yield_context) can potentially make this more general,
if-and-only-if the plugin has a synchronous implementation as a
fallback. currently, the plugin interfaces take an optional_yield, but
QccCrypto::perform_op_batch() calls y.get_yield_context() on it
unconditionally. even within rgw, there may not be a real
yield_context - rgw_beast_enable_async may be false, or the object
write maybe be driven synchronously by an admin command like
`radosgw-admin obj rewrite`
2. even with coroutines, rgw requests may still have to wait for a qat
instance. with a limited number of instances, couldn't this itself
become a bottleneck as we scale up the number of concurrent requests?
earlier in the thread, we discussed falling back to the cpu
implementation if there wasn't a qat instance available. that could
avoid the need for waits, synchronous or otherwise, inside of the
plugin. this would let us take advantage of hardware acceleration when
we can without introducing any new contention. do you see any
drawbacks to this approach?
i hate to keep sending you back to the drawing board; would it help to
discuss this in person? the Performance Weekly call
(https://pad.ceph.com/p/performance_weekly) could be a good place for
that. if that isn't a good time, we might schedule a separate call or
wait until March 1st for the Ceph Developer Monthly (APAC)
>
> And about the PR https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/47845, I do agree your view that the extra complexity isn't
> worth it. I will close this PR.
>
> Thanks
> -Hualong
Hi all,
today's topics were:
- Labs:
- Keeping a catalog
- Have a dedicated group to debug/work through the issues.
- Looking for interested parties that would like to contribute in the
lab maintenance tasks
- Poll for meeting time, looking for a central person to follow up /
organize
- No one's been actively coordinating on the lab issues apart from
Laura. David Orman volunteered if we need help coordinating the lab issues
- Reef release
- [casey] things aren't looking good for end-of-february freeze
- Since the whole thing depends on test-infra, can't really estimate
the time frame.
- The freeze maybe delayed
- Dev Summit in Amsterdam: estimate how many would attend in person,
remote
- 50/50 of those present would attend (as per the voting)
- Ad hoc virtual could work
- Need to update the component leads page:
https://ceph.io/en/community/team/
- Vikhyath volunteered before, so Josh will check with him.
Regards,
--
Nizamudeen A
Software Engineer
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
<https://www.redhat.com/>
Hi all,
I'm seeing the following behavior on a Pacific (16.2.9) cluster and
wanted to know if it is expected and - eventually - what's the rationale
behind it.
- User A owns the bucket X
- User B is allowed to write to X and also owns other buckets on his own
- Both A and B users have bucket and user quotas set
When User B writes in the bucket X, I can see from the logs that:
- Bucket quota is checked matching User A stats against User A limits
(...so far so - almost - good, being A the owner of the bucket...)
- User quota is checked matching User B stats against User A limits
Recalling that User B stats are affected by his own buckets, I'm
guessing if the last check makes sense.
Thank you.*
*
*Paolo De Pasquale*
We are happy to announce another release of the go-ceph API library. This
is a
regular release following our every-two-months release cadence.
https://github.com/ceph/go-ceph/releases/tag/v0.20.0
Changes include additions to the rbd, rgw and cephfs packages. More details
are
available at the link above.
The library includes bindings that aim to play a similar role to the
"pybind"
python bindings in the ceph tree but for the Go language. The library also
includes additional APIs that can be used to administer cephfs, rbd, and rgw
subsystems.
There are already a few consumers of this library in the wild, including the
ceph-csi project.
Sven
As part of an effort to build and test ceph in containers I posted a PR in
November:
https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/48697
As noted in the PR there are two approvals but no one seems willing or has the
time to shepherd the PR through the merge process.
I'm not sure what my next steps on this PR can be. I had planned on having
this PR serve as an intermediate step towards being able to build from source
and run 'make tests' in containers. This is an effort Enesto started and I've
been working on for a while. I'm currently blocked because of the uncertainty
around this PR.
If anyone has any thoughts or recommendations for me I'd appreciate it. I did
ping ceph/core in the PR as well, but I figured I might get some more attention
here on the list.
Thanks!
Hi all,
I am trying to build Ceph binaries from the main branch. Sometimes
"ninja -j 7 " (see the bottom for steps I run to initiate the build)
gets stuck at the step where the Boost library is downloaded. The step
description printed on stdout is "Performing download step (download,
verify and extract) for 'Boost'". Running nethogs shows that cmake is
indeed downloading but the download speed is less than 50 Kbps. Last
night, I also saw this issue while building binaries for the "quincy"
branch.
Cancelling and reinitiating the build has no effect on the download
speed. Is there a way to choose the faster/fastest mirror to download
the Boost library? How can I change the default mirror that cmake
uses?
Another option is to use the boost library installed on my system. For
this I can pass "-DWITH_SYSTEM_BOOST=ON" to the "do_cmake.sh" script.
My system has version 1.76 installed. Will this version work fine? Has
anyone tried this before?
I don't face this issue all the time. It happens once in a couple
months but whenever it does, I am stuck for several hours.
System I am using is Fedora 36. Following are the commands I usually
run to initiate building of Ceph binaries -
$ sudo ./install-deps.sh
$ ./do_cmake.sh -DWITH_CEPHFS_SHELL=ON -DWITH_BABELTRACE=OFF
-DWITH_MANPAGE=OFF -DWITH_RBD=OFF -DWITH_RADOSGW=OFF -DWITH_KRBD=OFF
-DWITH_MGR_DASHBOARD_FRONTEND=OFF
$ cd build
$ ninja -j 7
Thanks,
- Rishabh