[gentoo-commits] data/glep:master commit in: glep-0075-extras/, /

[Ulrich Müller]

commit:     c20d199e05de86d4430e069d13fc7ee64b73195b
Author:     Michał Górny <mgorny <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
AuthorDate: Fri Jan 26 23:14:39 2018 +0000
Commit:     Ulrich Müller <ulm <AT> gentoo <DOT> org>
CommitDate: Wed Feb  7 13:22:05 2018 +0000
URL:        https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?id=c20d199e

glep-0075: Split distfile mirror directory structure

 glep-0075-extras/by-csum.png     | Bin 0 -> 7118 bytes
 glep-0075-extras/by-csum2.png    | Bin 0 -> 13362 bytes
 glep-0075-extras/by-filename.png | Bin 0 -> 6871 bytes
 glep-0075.rst                    | 331 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 4 files changed, 331 insertions(+)

diff --git a/glep-0075-extras/by-csum.png b/glep-0075-extras/by-csum.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..14e8cff
Binary files /dev/null and b/glep-0075-extras/by-csum.png differ

diff --git a/glep-0075-extras/by-csum2.png b/glep-0075-extras/by-csum2.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..64c682d
Binary files /dev/null and b/glep-0075-extras/by-csum2.png differ

diff --git a/glep-0075-extras/by-filename.png b/glep-0075-extras/by-filename.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a6da06d
Binary files /dev/null and b/glep-0075-extras/by-filename.png differ

diff --git a/glep-0075.rst b/glep-0075.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0a1d5c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/glep-0075.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,331 @@
+---
+GLEP: 75
+Title: Split distfile mirror directory structure
+Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>,
+        Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o>
+Type: Standards Track
+Status: Draft
+Version: 1
+Created: 2018-01-26
+Last-Modified: 2018-01-27
+Post-History: 2018-01-27
+Content-Type: text/x-rst
+---
+
+Abstract
+========
+This GLEP describes the procedure for splitting the distfiles on mirrors
+into multiple directories with the goal of reducing the number of files
+in a single directory.
+
+
+Motivation
+==========
+At the moment, both the package manager and Gentoo mirrors use flat
+directory structure to store files.  While this solution usually works,
+it does not scale well.  Directories with large number of files usually
+have significant performance penalty, unless using filesystems
+specifically designed for that purpose.
+
+According to the Gentoo repository state at 2018-01-26 16:23, there
+was a total of 62652 unique distfiles in the repository.  While
+the users realistically hit around 10% of that, distfile mirrors often
+hold even more files --- more so if old distfiles are not wiped
+immediately.
+
+While all filesystems used on Linux boxes should be able to cope with
+a number that large, they may suffer a performance penalty with even
+a few thousand files.  Additionally, if mirrors enable directory indexes
+then generating the index imposes both a significant server overhead
+and a significant data transfer.  At this moment, the index
+of distfiles.gentoo.org has around 17 MiB.
+
+Splitting the distfiles into multiple directories makes it possible
+to avoid those problems by reducing the number of files in a single
+directory.  For example, splitting the forementioned set of distfiles
+into 16 directories that are roughly balanced allows to reduce
+the number of files in a single directory to around 4000.  Splitting
+them further into 256 directories (16x16) results in 200-300 files
+per directory which should avoid any performance problems long-term,
+even assuming 300% growth of number of distfiles.
+
+
+Specification
+=============
+Mirror layout file
+------------------
+A mirror adhering to this specification should include a ``layout.conf``
+file in the top distfile directory.  This file uses the format
+derived from the freedesktop Desktop Entry Specification file format
+[#DESKTOP_FORMAT]_.
+
+Before using each Gentoo mirror, the package manager should attempt
+to fetch (update) its ``layout.conf`` file and process it to determine
+how to use the mirror.  If the file is not present, the package manager
+should behave as if it were empty.
+
+The package manager should recognize the sections and keys listed below.
+It should ignore any unrecognized sections or keys --- the format
+is intended to account for future extensions.
+
+This specification currently defines one section: ``[structure]``.
+This section defines one or more repository structure definitions
+using sequential integer keys.  The definition keyed as ``0``
+is the most preferred structure.  The package manager should use
+the first structure format it recognizes as supported, and ignore any
+it does not recognize.  If this section is not present, the package
+manager should behave as if only ``flat`` structure were supported.
+
+The following structure definitions are supported:
+
+* ``flat`` to indicate the traditional flat structure where all
+  distfiles are located in the top directory,
+
+* ``filename-hash <algorithm> <cutoffs>`` to indicate the `filename
+  hash structure`_ explained below.
+
+
+Filename hash structure
+-----------------------
+When using the filename hash structure, the distfiles are split
+into directories whose names are derived from the hash of distfile
+filename.  This structure has two parameters: *algorithm name*
+and *cutoffs* list.
+
+The algorithm name must correspond to a valid Manifest hash name.
+An informational list of hashes is included in GLEP 74 [#GLEP74]_,
+and the policies for introducing new hashes are covered by GLEP 59
+[#GLEP59]_.
+
+The cutoffs list specifies one or more integers separated by colons
+(``:``), indicating the number of bits (starting with the most
+significant bit) of the hash used to form subsequent subdirectory names.
+For example, the list of ``2:4`` would indicate that top-level directory
+names are formed using 2 most significant bits of the hash (resulting
+in 2² = 4 directories), and each of this directories would have
+subdirectories formed using the next 4 bits of the hash (resulting
+in 2⁴ = 8 subdirectories each).
+
+The exact algorithm for determining the distfile location follows:
+
+1. Let the distfile filename be **F**.
+
+2. Compute the hash of **F** and store its binary value as **H**.
+
+3. For each integer **C** in cutoff list:
+
+   a. Take **C** most significant bits of **H** and store them as **V**.
+
+   b. Convert **V** into hexadecimal integer, left padded with zeros
+      to **C/4** digits (rounded up) and append it to the path, followed
+      by the path separator.
+
+   c. Shift **H** left **C** bits.
+
+4. Finally, append **F** to the obtained path.
+
+In particular, note that when using nested directories
+the subdirectories do not repeat the hash bits used in parent directory.
+
+
+Migrating mirrors to the hashed structure
+-----------------------------------------
+Since all distfile mirrors sync to the master Gentoo mirror, it should
+be enough to perform all the needed changes on the master mirror
+and wait for other mirrors to sync.  The following procedure
+is recommended:
+
+1. Include the initial ``layout.conf`` listing only ``flat`` layout.
+
+2. Create the new structure alongside the flat structure. Wait for
+   mirrors to sync.
+
+3. Once all mirrors receive the new structure, update ``layout.conf``
+   to list the ``filename-hash`` structure.
+
+4. Once a version of Portage supporting the new structure is stable long
+   enough, remove the fallback ``flat`` structure from ``layout.conf``
+   and duplicate distfiles.
+
+This implies that during the migration period the distfiles will
+be stored duplicated on the mirrors and therefore will occupy twice
+as much space.  Technically, this could be avoided either by using
+hard links or symbolic links.
+
+The hard link solution allows us to save space on the master mirror.
+Additionally, if ``-H`` option is used by the mirrors it avoids
+transferring existing files again.  However, this option is known
+to be expensive and could cause significant server load.  Without it,
+all mirrors need to transfer a second copy of all the existing files.
+
+The symbolic link solution could be more reliable if we could rely
+on mirrors using the ``--links`` rsync option.  Without that, symbolic
+links are not transferred at all.
+
+
+Using hashed structure for local distfiles
+------------------------------------------
+The hashed structure defined above could also be used for local distfile
+storage as used by the package manager.  For this to work, the package
+manager authors need to ensure that:
+
+a. The ``${DISTDIR}`` variable in the ebuild scope points to a temporary
+   directory where distfiles specific to the package are linked
+   in a flat structure.
+
+b. All tools are updated to support the nested structure.
+
+c. The package manager provides a tool for users to easily manipulate
+   distfiles, in particular to add distfiles for fetch-restricted
+   packages into an appropriate subdirectory.
+
+For extended compatibility, the package manager may support finding
+distfiles in flat and nested structure simultaneously.
+
+
+Rationale
+=========
+Algorithm for splitting distfiles
+---------------------------------
+In the original debate that occurred in bug #534528 [#BUG534528]_,
+three possible solutions for splitting distfiles were listed:
+
+a. using initial portion of filename,
+
+b. using initial portion of file hash,
+
+c. using initial portion of filename hash.
+
+The significant advantage of the filename option was simplicity.  With
+that solution, the users could easily determine the correct subdirectory
+themselves.  However, it's significant disadvantage was very uneven
+shuffling of data.  In particular, the TeΧ Live packages alone count
+almost 23500 distfiles and all use a common prefix, making it impossible
+to split them further.
+
+The alternate option of using file hash has the advantage of having
+a more balanced split.  Furthermore, since hashes are stored
+in Manifests using them is zero-cost.  However, this solution has two
+significant disadvantages:
+
+1. The hash values are unknown for newly-downloaded distfiles, so
+   ``repoman`` (or an equivalent tool) would have to use a temporary
+   directory before locating the file in appropriate subdirectory.
+
+2. User-provided distfiles (e.g. for fetch-restricted packages) with
+   hash mismatches would be placed in the wrong subdirectory,
+   potentially causing confusing errors.
+
+Using filename hashes has proven to provide a similar balance
+to using file hashes.  Furthermore, since filenames are known up front
+this solution does not suffer from the both listed problems.  While
+hashes need to be computed manually, hashing short string should not
+cause any performance problems.
+
+.. figure:: glep-0075-extras/by-filename.png
+
+   Distribution of distfiles by first character of filenames
+
+.. figure:: glep-0075-extras/by-csum.png
+
+   Distribution of distfiles by first hex-digit of checksum
+   (x --- content checksum, + --- filename checksum)
+
+.. figure:: glep-0075-extras/by-csum2.png
+
+   Distribution of distfiles by two first hex-digits of checksum
+   (x --- content checksum, + --- filename checksum)
+
+
+Layout file
+-----------
+The presence of control file has been suggested in the original
+discussion.  Its main purpose is to let package managers cleanly handle
+the migration and detect how to correctly query the mirrors throughout
+it.  Furthermore, it makes future changes easier.
+
+The format lines specifically mean to hardcode as little about
+the actual algorithm as possible.  Therefore, we can easily change
+the hash used or the exact split structure without having to update
+the package managers or even provide a compatibility layout.
+
+The file is also open for future extensions to provide additional mirror
+metadata.  However, no clear use for that has been determined so far.
+
+
+Hash algorithm
+--------------
+The hash algorithm support is fully deferred to the existing code
+in the package managers that is required to handle Manifests.
+In particular, it is recommended to reuse one of the hashes that are
+used in Manifest entries at the time.  This avoids code duplication
+and reuses an existing mechanism to handle hash upgrades.
+
+During the discussion, it has been pointed that this particular use case
+does not require a cryptographically strong hash and a faster algorithm
+could be used instead.  However, given the short length of hashed
+strings performance is not a problem, and speed does not justify
+the resulting code duplication.
+
+It has also been pointed out that e.g. the BLAKE2 hash family provides
+the ability of creating arbitrary length hashes instead of truncating
+the standard-length hash.  However, not all implementations of BLAKE2
+support that and relying on it could reduce portability for no apparent
+gain.
+
+
+Backwards Compatibility
+=======================
+Mirror compatibility
+--------------------
+The mirrored files are propagated to other mirrors as opaque directory
+structure.  Therefore, there are no backwards compatibility concerns
+on the mirroring side.
+
+Backwards compatibility with existing clients is detailed
+in `migrating mirrors to the hashed structure`_ section.  Backwards
+compatibility with the old clients will be provided by preserving
+the flat structure during the transitional period.
+
+The new clients will fetch the ``layout.conf`` file to avoid backwards
+compatibility concerns in the future.  In case of hitting an old mirror,
+the package manager will default to the ``flat`` structure.
+
+
+Package manager storage compatibility
+-------------------------------------
+The exact means of preserving backwards compatibility in package manager
+storage are left to the package manager authors.  However, it is
+recommended that package managers continue to support the flat layout
+even if it is no longer the default.  The package manager may either
+continue to read files from this location or automatically move them
+to an appropriate subdirectory.
+
+
+Reference Implementation
+========================
+TODO.
+
+
+References
+==========
+.. [#DESKTOP_FORMAT] Desktop Entry Specification: Basic format of the file
+   (https://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/ar01s03.html)
+
+.. [#GLEP74] GLEP 74: Full-tree verification using Manifest files:
+   Checksum algorithms (informational)
+   (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html#checksum-algorithms-informational)
+
+.. [#GLEP59] GLEP 59: Manifest2 hash policies and security implications
+   (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0059.html)
+
+.. [#BUG534528] Bug 534528 - distfiles should be sorted into subdirectories
+   of DISTDIR
+   (https://bugs.gentoo.org/534528)
+
+
+Copyright
+=========
+This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0
+Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit
+http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.