Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 00/49] Add initial experimental external ODB support

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 1, 2017, 19:41 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD2hghBePr-WVLiA6P0rS5=JPLmsxqJ_6rEWrqG3VEd7Dg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4be750af-b093-6644-7f0e-82983327766a@gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Ben Peart <peartben@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 6/20/2017 3:54 AM, Christian Couder wrote:

Show 18 quoted lines

>> To be able to better handle some kind of objects, for example big
>> blobs, it would be nice if Git could store its objects in other object
>> databases (ODB).
>>
>> To do that, this patch series makes it possible to register commands,
>> also called "helpers", using "odb.<odbname>.command" config variables,
>> to access external ODBs where objects can be stored and retrieved.
>>
>> External ODBs should be able to tranfer information about the blobs
>> they store. This patch series shows how this is possible using kind of
>> replace refs.
>
> Great to see this making progress!
>
> My thoughts and questions are mostly about the overall design tradeoffs.
>
> Is your intention to enable the ODB to completely replace the regular object
> store or just to supplement it?

It is to supplement it, as I think the regular object store works very well most of the time.

> I think it would be good to ensure the
> interface is robust and performant enough to actually replace the current
> object store interface (even if we don't actually do that just yet).

I agree that it should be robust and performant, but I don't think it needs to be as performant in all cases as the current object store right now.

> Another way of asking this is: do the 3 verbs (have, get, put) and the 3
> types of "get" enable you to wrap the current loose object and pack file
> code as ODBs and run completely via the external ODB interface?  If not,
> what is missing and can it be added?

Right now the "put" verb only send plain blobs, so the most logical way to run completely via the external ODB interface would be to use it to send and receive plain blobs. There are tests scripts (t0420, t0470 and t0480) that use an http server as the external ODB and all the blobs are stored in it.

And yeah for now it works only for blobs. There is a temporary patch in the series that limits it to blobs. For the non RFC patch series, I think it should either use the attribute system to tell which objects should be run via the external ODB interface, or perhaps there should be a way to ask each external ODB helper which kind of objects and blobs it can handle. I should add that in the future work part.

> _Eventually_ it would be great to see the current object store(s) moved
> behind the new ODB interface.

This is not one of my goals and I think it could be a problem if we want to keep the "fault in" mode. In this mode the helper writes or reads directly to or from the current object store, so it needs the current object store to be available.

Also I think compatibility with other git implementations is important and it is a good thing that they can all work on a common repository format.

> When there are multiple ODB providers, what is the order they are called?

The external_odb_config() function creates the helpers for the external ODBs in the order they are found in the config file, and then these helpers are called in turn in the same order.

> If one fails a request (get, have, put) are the others called to see if they
> can fulfill the request?

Yes, but there are no tests to check that it works well. I will need to add some.

> Can the order they are called for various verb be configured explicitly?

Right now, you can configure the order by changing the config file, but the order will be the same for all the verbs.

> For
> example, it would be nice to have a "large object ODB handler" configured to
> get first try at all "put" verbs.  Then if it meets it's size requirements,
> it will handle the verb, otherwise it fail and git will try the other ODBs.

This can work if the "large object ODB handler" is configured first.

Also this is linked with how you define which objects are handled by which helper. For example if the attribute system is used to describe which external ODB is used for which files, there could be a way to tell for example that blobs larger than 1MB are handled by the "large object ODB handler" while those that are smaller are handled by another helper.

Show 22 quoted lines

>> Design
>> ~~~~~~
>>
>> * The "helpers" (registered commands)
>>
>> Each helper manages access to one external ODB.
>>
>> There are now 2 different modes for helper:
>>
>>    - When "odb.<odbname>.scriptMode" is set to "true", the helper is
>>      launched each time Git wants to communicate with the <odbname>
>>      external ODB.
>>
>>    - When "odb.<odbname>.scriptMode" is not set or set to "false", then
>>      the helper is launched once as a sub-process (using
>>      sub-process.h), and Git communicates with it using packet lines.
>
> Is it worth supporting two different modes long term?  It seems that this
> could be simplified (less code to write, debug, document, support) by only
> supporting the 2nd that uses the sub-process.  As far as I can tell, the
> capabilities are the same, it's just the second one is more performant when
> multiple calls are made.

Yeah, capabilities are the same, but I think the script mode has value, because helper are simpler to write and debug. If for example one wants to use the external ODB system to implement clone bundles, like what is done in t0430 at the end of the patch series, then it's much simpler if the helper uses the script mode, and there is no performance downside as the helper will be called once.

I think people might want to implement these kinds of helpers to just setup a repo quickly and properly for their specific needs. For example for companies using big monorepos, there could be different helpers for different kind of people working on different parts of the code. For example one for front end developers and one for back end developers.

Also my goal is to share as much of the implementation as possible between the script and the sub process mode. I think this can help us be confident that the overall design is good.

Show 19 quoted lines

>> A helper can be given different instructions by Git. The instructions
>> that are supported are negociated at the beginning of the
>> communication using a capability mechanism.
>>
>> For now the following instructions are supported:
>>
>>    - "have": the helper should respond with the sha1, size and type of
>>      all the objects the external ODB contains, one object per line.
>>
>>    - "get <sha1>": the helper should then read from the external ODB
>>      the content of the object corresponding to <sha1> and pass it to Git.
>>
>>    - "put <sha1> <size> <type>": the helper should then read from from
>>      Git an object and store it in the external ODB.
>>
>> Currently "have" and "put" are optional.
>
> It's good the various verbs can be optional.  That way any particular ODB
> only has to handle those it needs to provide a different behavior for.

Yeah, my goal is to have only the "init" verb be required.

Show 11 quoted lines

>> There are 3 different kinds of "get" instructions depending on how the
>> helper passes objects to Git:
>>
>>    - "fault_in": the helper will write the requested objects directly
>>      into the regular Git object database, and then Git will retry
>>      reading it from there.
>>
>
> I think the "fault_in" behavior can be implemented efficiently without the
> overhead of a 3rd special "get" instruction if we enable some of the other
> capabilities discussed.

The "fault_in" behavior will be just a special kind of "get" capability. Git needs to know that the helper has this capability, but there should be no overhead. So I am not sure if I understand you properly.

Show 7 quoted lines

> For example, assume an ODB is setup to handle missing objects (by
> registering itself as "last" in the prioritized list of ODB handlers). If it
> is ever asked to retrieve a missing object, it can retrieve the object and
> return it as a "git_object" or "plain_object" and also cache it locally as a
> loose object, pack file, or any other ODB handler supported mechanism.
> Future requests will then provide that object via the locally cached copy
> and its associated ODB handler.

Yeah, but if the ODB handler has written it the first time as a loose file into the regular Git object database, then it won't be requested again from the handler. Maybe you are saying that using the regular Git object database is an overhead?

Show 12 quoted lines

>>    - "git_object": the helper will send the object as a Git object.
>>
>>    - "plain_object": the helper will send the object (a blob) as a raw
>>      object. (The blob content will be sent as is.)
>>
>> For now the kind of "get" that is supported is read from the
>> "odb.<odbname>.fetchKind" configuration variable, but in the future it
>> should be decided as part of the capability negociation.
>
> I agree it makes sense to move this into the capability negotiation but I
> also wonder if we really need to support both.  Is there a reason we can't
> just choose one and force all ODBs to support it?

I think the different kind of get can all be useful and can all be natural in different situations.

For example if there are different Git repos that share a lot of common quite big blobs that may not be often needed by the developers using these repos. They might want to store them in only one repo and configure the other repos to get these blobs from the first one only if they are needed. In this case it is better if the repos can share the blobs as Git objects.

If on the other hand one want to store a few very big blobs on an HTTP server, where they could also be retrieved using a browser, it is simpler if they are stored as plain objects and passed to Git as such.

The "fault in" mode is interesting in case of a clone bundle, or fetching bundles, for example.

Forcing only one mode means making it harder for some use cases and probably having external ODB helpers duplicate a lot of code in different programming languages.

Show 6 quoted lines

>> * Transfering information
>
> This whole section on "odb ref" feels out of place to me.  Below you state
> it is optional in which case I think it should be discussed in the patches
> that implement the tests that use it rather than here.  It seems to be a
> test ODB specific implementation detail.

I think it is good to provide somewhere in the cover letter an idea about how this part can already easily work, so that people can understand the whole picture. But I agree it should probably move to the "Implementation" section.

Show 40 quoted lines

>> To tranfer information about the blobs stored in external ODB, some
>> special refs, called "odb ref", similar as replace refs, are used in
>> the tests of this series, but in general nothing forces the helper to
>> use that mechanism.
>>
>> The external odb helper is responsible for using and creating the refs
>> in refs/odbs/<odbname>/, if it wants to do that. It is free for example
>> to just create one ref, as it is also free to create many refs. Git
>> would just transmit the refs that have been created by this helper, if
>> Git is asked to do so.
>>
>> For now in the tests there is one odb ref per blob, as it is simple
>> and as it is similar to what git-lfs does. Each ref name is
>> refs/odbs/<odbname>/<sha1> where <sha1> is the sha1 of the blob stored
>> in the external odb named <odbname>.
>>
>> These odb refs point to a blob that is stored in the Git
>> repository and contain information about the blob stored in the
>> external odb. This information can be specific to the external odb.
>> The repos can then share this information using commands like:
>>
>> `git fetch origin "refs/odbs/<odbname>/*:refs/odbs/<odbname>/*"`
>>
>> At the end of the current patch series, "git clone" is teached a
>> "--initial-refspec" option, that asks it to first fetch some specified
>> refs. This is used in the tests to fetch the odb refs first.
>>  > This way only one "git clone" command can setup a repo using the
>> external ODB mechanism as long as the right helper is installed on the
>> machine and as long as the following options are used:
>>
>>    - "--initial-refspec <odbrefspec>" to fetch the odb refspec
>>    - "-c odb.<odbname>.command=<helper>" to configure the helper
>>
>> There is also a test script that shows that the "--initial-refspec"
>> option along with the external ODB mechanism can be used to implement
>> cloning using bundles.
>
> The fact that "git clone is taught a --initial-refspec" option" indicates
> this isn't just an ODB implementation detail.  Is there a general capability
> that is missing from the ODB interface that needs to be addressed here?

Technically you don't need to teach `git clone` the --initial-refspec option to make it work. It can work like this:

$ git init $ git remote add origin <originurl> $ git fetch origin <odbrefspec> $ git config odb.<odbname>.command <helper> $ git fetch origin

But it is much simpler for the user to instead just do:

$ git clone -c odb.<odbname>.command=<helper> --initial-refspec <odbrefspec> <originurl>

I also think that the --initial-refspec option could perhaps be useful for other kinds of refs for example tags, notes or replace refs, to make sure that those refs are fetched first and that hooks can use them when fetching other refs like branches in the later part of the clone.

I have put the --initial-refspec at the end of the patch series because there could be other ways to do it. For example the helper could perhaps be passed <originurl> in the "init" instruction and then use this URL to get all the information it needs (for example by fetching special refs from this URL or any other way it wants).

The problem with that is if the setup is done in separate steps (`git init`, then `git remote add` ...) like I show above, then it is not sure that the "init" would trigger when fetching the right remote/URL. It could trigger when the user does a `git log` in between the above steps, and this means that helpers receiving "init" should not rely on being always passed a remote/URL.

So the "init" handling in the helpers would have to be more complex than if they only need to rely on the <odbrefspec> having been fetched before.

> I don't believe there is.  Instead, I think we should allow the various
> "partial clone" patch series already in progress solve the problem of how
> you do a partial clone of a repo.

I think this is not really related to partial clone, but maybe I should take a closer look at these patch series.

Show 8 quoted lines

> [1]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/1488994685-37403-1-git-send-email-jeffhost@microsoft.com/
> [2]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20170309073117.g3br5btsfwntcdpe@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> [3]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/cover.1496361873.git.jonathantanmy@google.com/
> [4]
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20170602232508.GA21733@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com/

Show 27 quoted lines

>> Highlevel view of the patches in the series
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>      - Patch 1/49 is a small code cleanup that I already sent to the
>>        mailing list but will probably be removed in the end bdue to
>>        ongoing work on "git clone"
>>
>>      - Patches 02/49 to 08/49 create a Git/Packet.pm module by
>>        refactoring "t0021/rot13-filter.pl". Functions from this new
>>        module will be used later in test scripts.
>
> Nice!
>
>>      - Patches 09/49 to 16/49 create the external ODB insfrastructure
>>        in external-odb.{c,h} and odb-helper.{c,h} for the script mode.
>>
>>      - Patches 17/49 to 23/49 improve lib-http to make it possible to
>>        use it as an external ODB to test storing blobs in an HTTP
>>        server.
>>
>>      - Patches 24/49 to 44/49 improve the external ODB insfrastructure
>>        to support sub-processes and make everything work using them.
>
> I understand why it is this way historically but it seems these should just
> be combined with patches 9-16. Instead of writing the new odb specific
> routines and then patching them to support sub-process, just write them that
> way the "first" time.

Yeah, I could do that but I fear it would result in a some bigger patches that would be harder to review and understand than a longer patch series where feature are implemented and tested in small steps.

Show 6 quoted lines

>>      - Patches 45/49 to 49/49 add the --initial-refspec to git clone
>>        along with tests.
>
> I'm hopeful the changes to git clone to add the --initial-refspec can
> eventually be dropped. It seems we should be able to test the ODB
> capabilities without having to add options to git clone.

I described above (and there are examples in the tests of) how --initial-refspec can be avoided, but in the end I think we should really have a robust and easy way for the user to setup everything. And for now I think --initial-refspec is at least a good solution.

Thanks for your interest and your help in this!