Change WC size estimations
#3106
Conversation
Refs #3076. Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <[email protected]>
End-rey
requested review from
roman-khimov,
carpawell and
cthulhu-rider
as code owners
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #3106 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 22.33% 22.39% +0.05%
==========================================
Files 751 751
Lines 58028 58039 +11
==========================================
+ Hits 12962 12999 +37
+ Misses 44181 44149 -32
- Partials 885 891 +6 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
We will. It allows to answer |
| cacheSz := c.estimateCacheSize() | ||
| if c.maxCacheSize < c.incSizeFS(cacheSz) { | ||
| cacheSz := c.objCounters.Size() | ||
| objSz := obj.obj.PayloadSize() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Object is a bit bigger than its payload. But if can't get its size easily it should be OK this way.
| if c.maxCacheSize < c.incSizeFS(cacheSz) { | ||
| cacheSz := c.objCounters.Size() | ||
| objSz := obj.obj.PayloadSize() | ||
| if c.maxCacheSize < cacheSz+objSz { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can go slightly above the limit due to concurrency. Also likely not a bit issue.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| func (c *cache) initCounters() error { | ||
| inFS, err := c.fsTree.NumberOfObjects() | ||
| var objHandler = func(addr oid.Address, data []byte, _ []byte) error { | ||
| c.objCounters.Add(addr, uint64(len(data))) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Notice that you're using full object size here.
Now size of write-cache is a sum of every object currently stored in WS. Closes #3101. Signed-off-by: Andrey Butusov <[email protected]>
End-rey
force-pushed
the
3101-fix-wc-size-estimations
branch
from
c7b910d to
dfe2711
Compare
|
If I understand you correctly, I added a new |
|
|
Closes #3101.
Why are we doing this? We don't use it anywhere, do we?
Also, I forgot to include tests for migration from #3091, so I did it here.