Hi Kota, Thanks for taking up HDDS-5905 and quickly coming up with a design.
I liked the overall approach, but one thing instead of timestamps, I agree with Lokesh, we can use transaction index, and also this will make implementation easy. (As with timestamp, we need to propagate this from the leader, handle clock skews, and need to handle leader changes. And one question, so do we plan to use RepeatedKeyInfo, now with this change it will be no more list. You are not planning to change proto? Thanks, Bharat On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 11:12 PM Lokesh Jain <lj...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > >
