mirror of
https://github.com/ceph/ceph
synced 2024-12-22 03:22:00 +00:00
91ed10bc73
Edit the second part of the section "Most Common Monitor Issues" in doc/rados/troubleshooting/troubleshooting-mon.rst. Follows https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/54417. Signed-off-by: Zac Dover <zac.dover@proton.me>
133 lines
6.7 KiB
ReStructuredText
133 lines
6.7 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _dev_mon_elections:
|
|
|
|
=================
|
|
Monitor Elections
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
The Original Algorithm
|
|
======================
|
|
Historically, monitor leader elections have been very simple: the lowest-ranked
|
|
monitor wins!
|
|
|
|
This is accomplished using a low-state "Elector" module (though it has now
|
|
been split into an Elector that handles message-passing, and an ElectionLogic
|
|
that makes the voting choices). It tracks the election epoch and not much
|
|
else. Odd epochs are elections; even epochs have a leader and let the monitor
|
|
do its ongoing work. When a timeout occurs or the monitor asks for a
|
|
new election, we bump the epoch and send out Propose messages to all known
|
|
monitors.
|
|
In general, if we receive an old message we either drop it or trigger a new
|
|
election (if we think the sender is newly-booted and needs to join quorum). If
|
|
we receive a message from a newer epoch, we bump up our epoch to match and
|
|
either Defer to the Proposer or else bump the epoch again and Propose
|
|
ourselves if we expect to win over them. When we receive a Propose within
|
|
our current epoch, we either Defer to the sender or ignore them (we ignore them
|
|
if they are of a higher rank than us, or higher than the rank we have already
|
|
deferred to).
|
|
(Note that if we have the highest rank it is possible for us to defer to every
|
|
other monitor in sequence within the same election epoch!)
|
|
|
|
This resolves under normal circumstances because all monitors agree on the
|
|
priority voting order, and epochs are only bumped when a monitor isn't
|
|
participating or sees a possible conflict with the known proposers.
|
|
|
|
The Problems
|
|
==============
|
|
The original algorithm didn't work at all under a variety of netsplit
|
|
conditions. This didn't manifest often in practice but has become
|
|
important as the community and commercial vendors move Ceph into
|
|
spaces requiring the use of "stretch clusters".
|
|
|
|
The New Algorithms
|
|
==================
|
|
We still default to the original ("classic") election algorithm, but
|
|
support letting users change to new ones via the CLI. These
|
|
algorithms are implemented as different functions and switch statements
|
|
within the ElectionLogic class.
|
|
|
|
The first algorithm is very simple: "disallow" lets you add monitors
|
|
to a list of disallowed leaders.
|
|
The second, "connectivity", incorporates connection score ratings
|
|
and elects the monitor with the best score.
|
|
|
|
Algorithm: disallow
|
|
===================
|
|
If a monitor is in the disallowed list, it always defers to another
|
|
monitor, no matter the rank. Otherwise, it is the same as the classic
|
|
algorithm is.
|
|
Since changing the disallowed list requires a paxos update, monitors
|
|
in an election together should always have the same set. This means
|
|
the election order is constant and static across the full monitor set
|
|
and elections resolve trivially (assuming a connected network).
|
|
|
|
This algorithm really just exists as a demo and stepping-stone to
|
|
the more advanced connectivity mode, but it may have utility in asymmetric
|
|
networks and clusters.
|
|
|
|
Algorithm: connectivity
|
|
=======================
|
|
This algorithm takes as input scores for each connection
|
|
(both ways, discussed in the next section) and attempts to elect the monitor
|
|
with the highest total score. We keep the same basic message-passing flow as the
|
|
classic algorithm, in which elections are driven by reacting to Propose messages.
|
|
But this has several challenges since unlike ranks, scores are not static (and
|
|
might change during an election!). To guarantee an election epoch does not
|
|
produce multiple leaders, we must maintain two key invariants:
|
|
* Monitors must maintain static scores during an election epoch
|
|
* Any deferral must be transitive -- if A defers to B and then to C,
|
|
B had better defer to C as well!
|
|
|
|
We handle these very explicitly: by branching a copy stable_peer_tracker
|
|
of our peer_tracker scoring object whenever starting an election (or
|
|
bumping the epoch), and by refusing to defer to a monitor if it won't
|
|
be deferred to by our current leader choice. (All Propose messages include
|
|
a copy of the scores the leader is working from, so peers can evaluate them.)
|
|
|
|
Of course, those modifications can easily block. To guarantee forward progress,
|
|
we make several further adjustments:
|
|
* If we want to defer to a new peer, but have already deferred to a peer
|
|
whose scores don't allow that, we bump the election epoch and start()
|
|
the election over again.
|
|
* All election messages include the scores the sender is aware of.
|
|
|
|
This guarantees we will resolve the election as long as the network is
|
|
reasonably stable (even if disconnected): As long as all score "views"
|
|
result in the same deferral order, an election will complete normally. And by
|
|
broadly sharing scores across the full set of monitors, monitors rapidly
|
|
converge on the global newest state.
|
|
|
|
This algorithm has one further important feature compared to the classic and
|
|
disallowed handlers: it can ignore out-of-quorum peers. Normally, whenever
|
|
a monitor B receives a Propose from an out-of-quorum peer C, B will itself trigger
|
|
a new election to give C an opportunity to join. But because the
|
|
highest-scoring monitor A may be netsplit from C, this is not desirable. So in
|
|
the connectivity election algorithm, B only "forwards" Propose messages when B's
|
|
scores indicate the cluster would choose a leader other than A.
|
|
|
|
Connection Scoring
|
|
==================
|
|
We implement scoring within the ConnectionTracker class, which is
|
|
driven by the Elector and provided to ElectionLogic as a resource. Elector
|
|
is responsible for sending out MMonPing messages, and for reporting the
|
|
results in to the ConnectionTracker as calls to report_[live|dead]_connection
|
|
with the relevant peer and the time units the call counts for. (These time units
|
|
are seconds in the monitor, but the ConnectionTracker is agnostic and our unit
|
|
tests count simple time steps.)
|
|
|
|
We configure a "half life" and each report updates the peer's current status
|
|
(alive or dead) and its total score. The new score is current_score * (1 - units_alive / (2 * half_life)) + (units_alive / (2 * half_life)). (For a dead report, we of course
|
|
subtract the new delta, rather than adding it).
|
|
|
|
We can further encode and decode the ConnectionTracker for wire transmission,
|
|
and receive_peer_report()s of a full ConnectionTracker (containing all
|
|
known scores) or a ConnectionReport (representing a single peer's scores)
|
|
to slurp up the scores from peers. These scores are of course all versioned so
|
|
we are in no danger of accidentally going backwards in time.
|
|
We can query an individual connection score (if the connection is down, it's 0)
|
|
or the total score of a specific monitor, which is the connection score from all
|
|
other monitors going in to that one.
|
|
|
|
By default, we consider pings failed after 2 seconds (mon_elector_ping_timeout)
|
|
and ping live connections every second (mon_elector_ping_divisor). The halflife
|
|
is 12 hours (mon_con_tracker_score_halflife).
|