On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 9:04 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 at 06:04, Kevin Kofler
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > IMHO, this whole "delete by default" concept is inherently flawed
> > dangerous and cannot be fixed. Notification e-mails can be lost in so
> > ways (wrong Fedora notification settings, e-mail provider issues, spam
> > filter false positives, out-of-quota mailbox, etc.) or be missed due to
> > being offline for a prolonged period of time. It should never be
> > to delete users' data without their explicit confirmation. Especially
> > this case where it is not even possible to reupload the data because
> > can no longer build for those EOL chroots (which is another quite
> > limitation of Copr – allowing to build for EOL releases would also
> > people to try backporting select security fixes to those releases
> > no longer wants to support).
> PS: I also think that at the very least, there ought to be a way to
> permanently opt-out a Copr repository out of all future cleanups. Some
> such as the Kannolo Copr should just always be preserved.
> I also do not understand why 6 TB of disk space is such an issue in times
> where one single HDD can carry up to 16 TB.
I think I have written something like the following every 3-4 years.
Every time newer larger disks come out there is some sort of magical
effect which makes people forget why that doesn't solve the problems
that koji, copr and mirrors have when dealing with storage.
1. A single disk can carry a lot of data, and can be reasonable fast
to get for 1 person. However start adding more people and different
size read/writes and that disk will drop completely.
2. SATA disks are cheap, but they are very expensive to use because
the logic on the controller and disk are dumb. Add different
read/write sizes like you do for a large number of users and the
actual performance dies.
3. Money for hardware, software and the place to put said
hardware/software needs to be accounted for and so just because you
ran out of disk space.. you will have to wait until the next business
cycle to get money to buy it. You will also be competing with every
other group who want money for their things too. This isn't any
different from a University or a company.
So we could go buy 1-4 very large disks and no person using COPR will
never see anything you compiled because they and 10k other charging
bison will be trying to get data from the disks. The IO falls through
the floor or becomes a square wave form. I say this from experience of
trying this experiment several times because someone read that they
could buy 4 <fill in new giant disk size> and it would quadruple what
they could get from our shared storage. Then we go through all the
magical kernel and filesystem options that they found which 'make it
work for someone else'.. and then we end up having to either buy more
disks because the fundamental problem is that drinking a milkshake
through a single cocktail straw doesn't work very well. You need more
cocktail straws or a bigger straw or something less thick than a
So you need more read/write heads to get the data to people in a way
which is acceptable for their own patience. We can do that normally
with 8 SAS disks (expensive smaller disks with a lot more onboard
logic to control data-ordering problems ) or 12-16 SATA disks to get
the same IO performance. With SATA arrays you end up with un-usable
space if you are being actively reading/writing a lot. Yes you have
200 TB in that array.. but you can only effectively use 40 to 100 TB
at a high IO rate. With SAS you are pretty much at what you have is
what you can use. If you have a workload like backups or something
similar where you are only doing writes, or only doing reads for a
SMALL number of processes you can also use a large SATA array and use
all of it. If instead you are using it for a lot of processes wanting
lots of different data or writing different data (aka COPR), you
effectively starve yourself by using it all because there is not
enough bandwidth. [I guess an analogy would be to be using the 36+ GB
memory sizes on a 32 bit processor.
I'm not trying to suggest that Ceph would be a magic bullet here, and it
comes with its own costs. Nevertheless since I work on the RH storage team,
it occurred to me that the performance and scale problems that you've
touched on are exactly the problem space that the Ceph project tries to