Hey Kota I really like the proposed approach because it makes sure that blocks are deleted in order of key deletion. I would suggest using Ratis transaction id as the prefix. I don’t think we will need a random suffix with that approach as transaction id would avoid any collisions. Further it avoid the cost of generating timestamps.
Thanks Lokesh > On 29-Oct-2021, at 7:52 AM, Kota Uenishi <k...@preferred.jp> wrote: > > Hi Bharat & devs, > > I've written up some of my idea to fix HDDS-5905, which is a > block-leak issue mentioned by Bharat. It involves some data format > change in deletion table, so I want to get broader range of feedback > from committers in addition to Bharat. If it looks good to you, I want > to start writing up a patch. Please take a look! > > The proposal: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KeyhiE1i5SqRSgLy-pIOGW9X6mUYb8iYEkEoDAEQD9Q/edit# > HDDS-5905: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDDS-5905 > > -- > -- > Kota UENISHI, Engineer > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ozone.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ozone.apache.org
