Revision 6e56e84a doc/design-2.2.rst
b/doc/design-2.2.rst | ||
---|---|---|
33 | 33 |
Core changes |
34 | 34 |
------------ |
35 | 35 |
|
36 |
Remote procedure call timeouts |
|
37 |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
38 |
|
|
39 |
Current state and shortcomings |
|
40 |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
|
41 |
|
|
42 |
The current RPC protocol used by Ganeti is based on HTTP. Every request |
|
43 |
consists of an HTTP PUT request (e.g. ``PUT /hooks_runner HTTP/1.0``) |
|
44 |
and doesn't return until the function called has returned. Parameters |
|
45 |
and return values are encoded using JSON. |
|
46 |
|
|
47 |
On the server side, ``ganeti-noded`` handles every incoming connection |
|
48 |
in a separate process by forking just after accepting the connection. |
|
49 |
This process exits after sending the response. |
|
50 |
|
|
51 |
There is one major problem with this design: Timeouts can not be used on |
|
52 |
a per-request basis. Neither client or server know how long it will |
|
53 |
take. Even if we might be able to group requests into different |
|
54 |
categories (e.g. fast and slow), this is not reliable. |
|
55 |
|
|
56 |
If a node has an issue or the network connection fails while a request |
|
57 |
is being handled, the master daemon can wait for a long time for the |
|
58 |
connection to time out (e.g. due to the operating system's underlying |
|
59 |
TCP keep-alive packets or timeouts). While the settings for keep-alive |
|
60 |
packets can be changed using Linux-specific socket options, we prefer to |
|
61 |
use application-level timeouts because these cover both machine down and |
|
62 |
unresponsive node daemon cases. |
|
63 |
|
|
64 |
Proposed changes |
|
65 |
++++++++++++++++ |
|
66 |
|
|
67 |
RPC glossary |
|
68 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
|
69 |
|
|
70 |
Function call ID |
|
71 |
Unique identifier returned by ``ganeti-noded`` after invoking a |
|
72 |
function. |
|
73 |
Function process |
|
74 |
Process started by ``ganeti-noded`` to call actual (backend) function. |
|
75 |
|
|
76 |
Protocol |
|
77 |
^^^^^^^^ |
|
78 |
|
|
79 |
Initially we chose HTTP as our RPC protocol because there were existing |
|
80 |
libraries, which, unfortunately, turned out to miss important features |
|
81 |
(such as SSL certificate authentication) and we had to write our own. |
|
82 |
|
|
83 |
This proposal can easily be implemented using HTTP, though it would |
|
84 |
likely be more efficient and less complicated to use the LUXI protocol |
|
85 |
already used to communicate between client tools and the Ganeti master |
|
86 |
daemon. Switching to another protocol can occur at a later point. This |
|
87 |
proposal should be implemented using HTTP as its underlying protocol. |
|
88 |
|
|
89 |
The LUXI protocol currently contains two functions, ``WaitForJobChange`` |
|
90 |
and ``AutoArchiveJobs``, which can take a longer time. They both support |
|
91 |
a parameter to specify the timeout. This timeout is usually chosen as |
|
92 |
roughly half of the socket timeout, guaranteeing a response before the |
|
93 |
socket times out. After the specified amount of time, |
|
94 |
``AutoArchiveJobs`` returns and reports the number of archived jobs. |
|
95 |
``WaitForJobChange`` returns and reports a timeout. In both cases, the |
|
96 |
functions can be called again. |
|
97 |
|
|
98 |
A similar model can be used for the inter-node RPC protocol. In some |
|
99 |
sense, the node daemon will implement a light variant of *"node daemon |
|
100 |
jobs"*. When the function call is sent, it specifies an initial timeout. |
|
101 |
If the function didn't finish within this timeout, a response is sent |
|
102 |
with a unique identifier, the function call ID. The client can then |
|
103 |
choose to wait for the function to finish again with a timeout. |
|
104 |
Inter-node RPC calls would no longer be blocking indefinitely and there |
|
105 |
would be an implicit ping-mechanism. |
|
106 |
|
|
107 |
Request handling |
|
108 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
|
109 |
|
|
110 |
To support the protocol changes described above, the way the node daemon |
|
111 |
handles request will have to change. Instead of forking and handling |
|
112 |
every connection in a separate process, there should be one child |
|
113 |
process per function call and the master process will handle the |
|
114 |
communication with clients and the function processes using asynchronous |
|
115 |
I/O. |
|
116 |
|
|
117 |
Function processes communicate with the parent process via stdio and |
|
118 |
possibly their exit status. Every function process has a unique |
|
119 |
identifier, though it shouldn't be the process ID only (PIDs can be |
|
120 |
recycled and are prone to race conditions for this use case). The |
|
121 |
proposed format is ``${ppid}:${cpid}:${time}:${random}``, where ``ppid`` |
|
122 |
is the ``ganeti-noded`` PID, ``cpid`` the child's PID, ``time`` the |
|
123 |
current Unix timestamp with decimal places and ``random`` at least 16 |
|
124 |
random bits. |
|
125 |
|
|
126 |
The following operations will be supported: |
|
127 |
|
|
128 |
``StartFunction(fn_name, fn_args, timeout)`` |
|
129 |
Starts a function specified by ``fn_name`` with arguments in |
|
130 |
``fn_args`` and waits up to ``timeout`` seconds for the function |
|
131 |
to finish. Fire-and-forget calls can be made by specifying a timeout |
|
132 |
of 0 seconds (e.g. for powercycling the node). Returns three values: |
|
133 |
function call ID (if not finished), whether function finished (or |
|
134 |
timeout) and the function's return value. |
|
135 |
``WaitForFunction(fnc_id, timeout)`` |
|
136 |
Waits up to ``timeout`` seconds for function call to finish. Return |
|
137 |
value same as ``StartFunction``. |
|
138 |
|
|
139 |
In the future, ``StartFunction`` could support an additional parameter |
|
140 |
to specify after how long the function process should be aborted. |
|
141 |
|
|
142 |
Simplified timing diagram:: |
|
143 |
|
|
144 |
Master daemon Node daemon Function process |
|
145 |
| |
|
146 |
Call function |
|
147 |
(timeout 10s) -----> Parse request and fork for ----> Start function |
|
148 |
calling actual function, then | |
|
149 |
wait up to 10s for function to | |
|
150 |
finish | |
|
151 |
| | |
|
152 |
... ... |
|
153 |
| | |
|
154 |
Examine return <---- | | |
|
155 |
value and wait | |
|
156 |
again -------------> Wait another 10s for function | |
|
157 |
| | |
|
158 |
... ... |
|
159 |
| | |
|
160 |
Examine return <---- | | |
|
161 |
value and wait | |
|
162 |
again -------------> Wait another 10s for function | |
|
163 |
| | |
|
164 |
... ... |
|
165 |
| | |
|
166 |
| Function ends, |
|
167 |
Get return value and forward <-- process exits |
|
168 |
Process return <---- it to caller |
|
169 |
value and continue |
|
170 |
| |
|
171 |
|
|
172 |
.. TODO: Convert diagram above to graphviz/dot graphic |
|
173 |
|
|
174 |
On process termination (e.g. after having been sent a ``SIGTERM`` or |
|
175 |
``SIGINT`` signal), ``ganeti-noded`` should send ``SIGTERM`` to all |
|
176 |
function processes and wait for all of them to terminate. |
|
177 |
|
|
178 |
|
|
36 | 179 |
Feature changes |
37 | 180 |
--------------- |
38 | 181 |
|
Also available in: Unified diff