Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1106091012030.4138@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:46:26 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	"Amir G." <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/30] Ext4 snapshots

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Amir G. wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Amir G. <amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com> wrote:
> >> >>> But I do understand the difference. And also, when it comes to fs level
> >> >>> snapshotting I would suspect that it would do something we can not do
> >> >>> with the current solutions, for example per-file or per-directory snapshots,
> >> >>> cat ext4 snapshots do that ?
> >> >> Hi Lukas,
> >> >>
> >> >> I noticed that there is no answer to this question in the thread.  I
> >> >
> >> > I think I answered this question with No it can't ;-)
> >> I think this can be implemented easily by chattr and adding check in
> >> should_snapshot() or should_move_data().
> >>
> >> And I thought Lukas are focusing on if ext4-snapshots can do this
> >> easily.  So i said YES:-)
> >
> > Cool, finally something interesting :). So, how it'll work ? Does that
> > require any format changes again:) ? Can you exclude the whole root and
> > then selectively pick the directories or files you are interested in ?
> 
> The design is actually very simple and not as powerful as you
> probably desire.
> I hate to get into the design of future features, when we haven't
> even ACKed the current feature yet, but since you're the only one
> did any review, I owe you that much ;-)

Thanks Amir!

You have to understand that I am still not convinced that ext4 snapshot
in its current state is really what we want to have in ext4. Especially
given the very basic features it provides, without any knowledge on how
it can be extended (but you're slowly providing that information, so
thanks for that). And especially facing the new dm-multisnap, I really
wonder if it is worth it.

If we want filesystem level snapshotting we can try to do it right with
all the benefits that snapshots on that level brings. But what I see
now, is not even remotely the case. And I have the feeling that all the
features that might be interesting for snapshotting at file system
level, are just a hack and not inherent from the design. But that is
probably because your goal was to snapshot the whole filesystem for the
backup purposes, but that's not what I would expect from fs level
snapshots. I really hope you understand my point.

> 
> To exclude a file from snapshot it needs to have the NOCOW_FL flag.
> Ironically, btrfs have already added that flag in parallel to me (for the
> same purpose) so the flag it is already reserved in the code :-)
> 
> To avoid some transition issues and keep it really simple,
> I disallow changing the NOCOW_FL
> for regular file and only allow to change it for directories.
> The NOCOW_FL is inherited from the parent directory,
> so setting/clearing the flag on a directory means:
> "All files/subdirs will be created excluded/not-excluded from now on".
> 
> Inside the snapshot image, excluded directories, which are not really
> excluded, show normally, but excluded files are shown with zero length,
> because making the files disappear is hard, but their blocks may have already
> been reused, so we cannot allow access to them.
> 
> >
> > How does rollback work with ext4 snapshots ? Can you selectively roll
> > back one file, or the whole directory subtree even when you're
> > snapshotting more ?
> 
> So there is actually no inherent "rollback" feature, not for a file/dir
> and not for the entire fs.
> It's a drawback of ext4 snapshots, but hey, cp/rsync from snapshot
> still works for file/dir ;-)
> As for full "fs" rollback. A revert tool has been developed (by students),
> which requires an external storage to export the "revert patch".
> This tool is going to be enhanced to use LVM snapshot storage
> and LVM --merge option to implement ext4 "revert to snapshot" with Yum.

And that is the problem. Because at this level you should be able to do
it without very much trouble, because being at file system level you
should have all the information. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying
that this is easy, but is should be "from design". Exporting the
"revert patch" to the external storage, or exporting snapshot to LVM
format to be able to merge it...that is all just hacks, because the
design itself does not count with that possibility.

> 
> >
> > You see, when it comes to the full fs snapshots I am not convinced that
> > it is *very* useful, yes it might have some users, but you can alway
> > take the safe way and do lvm snapshots (or better use the new multisnap)
> > for backup, without need to modify stable filesystem code.
> >
> 
> You think like a developer. Try talking to some sys admins.
> Especially ones that worked with Solaris/ZFS or NetApp.
> See what they think about snapshots and about the LVM alternative...
> Snapshots have addictive qualities. Ones you've used them, you can't
> go back to not having them.
> Imagine how people used to live before the 'Undo' button and imagine
> that your employer forced you to use an editor without an Undo button.
> This is the kind of feedback I got from sys admins that moved from Solaris
> to Linux.

Exactly, so if we want fs level snapshots, it should use that
privilege no hack its way to do things like roll back, or
excludes+includes. Ext4 was not meant to work that way, nor was your
snapshots designed to work that way. If we are considering backups only,
because that is what you ext4 snaphosts can provide now, I would prefer
to use LVM. But yes, we all need to know how the new multisnap works
out.

> 
> 
> > Also, I do not buy the whole argument of "not have to create separate disk
> > space for snapshot". It is actually better for sysadmins, because you
> > have perfect control on what is going on, how much space is used for
> > your snapshots and how much is used by your data. You can always easily
> > extend the snapshot volume, or let it die silently when it is too old
> > and too big.
> >
> 
> Seriously, Lukas, talk to sys admins.
> Letting the snapshot die silently is the worst possible thing that a snapshots
> implementation can do (for long lived snapshots).

Oh, no you misunderstood. Even with your snapshots you'll have to delete
old snapshots someday, because otherwise you'll run out of space. With
LVM however, you have prereserved space for it, so even if your snapshot
volume gets full, it does not affect your filesystem what so ever. And,
as a administrator, you can decide whether to extend the snapshot volume
to let it live longer, or just let it be and it will die eventually.

And, as far as I know, the new multisnap will notify the admin when the
snapshot volume approaches the watermark the same way that for example
thinly provisioned storage would do. But again, with your snapshots it
will give you ENOSPC when the snapshot grow too big, and at the end
of the day, you need to create data to be able to backup it:), so having
snapshots separate from your fs volume makes sense.

> 
> 
> > How does it actually work on ext4 snapshots ? When you're going to
> > rewrite a file, you will never know how much disk space it'll take in
> > advance, am I right ? Is the filesystem accounting for the snapshot size
> > as well ? or is it hidden ?
> 
> It's not hidden, it's accounted for as a regular file (usually owned by root).
> You need a bit of scripting to gather the disk space used by snapshots (du).
> 
> In ANY snapshots implementation, you can get ENOSPC on operations,
> which traditionally could not produce this error.
> This statement is also true for thin provisioning implementations.
> The question is how the implementation handles these situations.
> 
> What I came to realize on LSF, is that my implementation is the only
> one (of LVM and btrfs) that tries to deal with the ENOSPC issue and
> does a good job most of the time.
> 
> I deal with it by reserving space for metadata COW on snapshot
> take, so if a future ENOSPC during metadata COW is possible,
> snapshot take will fail with ENOSPC.
> 
> As for ENOSPC during regular file rewrite, that's not such a big problem.
> The application simply gets ENOSPC as if the file was sparse to begin
> with. It may not be pleasant if the application have fallocated the space
> and used mmap/close without msync...
> The only way I see around this issue is reserving space on mmap time
> (and returning ENOSPC at that time), but again, this issue is shared
> with btrfs, but is easier to fix (I think) with ext4 snapshots.

Yes, I do understand that ext4 snaphosts are doing well in that aspect,
but as I said, having snapshots separate from your file system gives
you advantage of not running into ENOSPC on your file system until you
really fill it with data.

Granted, I have to take a look at the multisnap code, to see what it can
do and compare it with ext4 snapshots, because really, if it is good
enough and you will be able to do snapshotting backups as you do with
your approach, I do not see the reason why to complicate our life in
ext4.

Thanks!
-Lukas

Powered by blists - more mailing lists