Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add S3 minimum part size defined by the user #17171

Open
wants to merge 42 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rvrangel
Copy link
Contributor

@rvrangel rvrangel commented Nov 7, 2024

Description

This adds a new parameter to allow the operator to specify a minimum part size for the S3 uploads.

Related Issue(s)

fixes #17175

Checklist

  • "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
  • If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
  • Tests were added or are not required
  • Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
  • Documentation was added or is not required

Deployment Notes

Copy link
Contributor

vitess-bot bot commented Nov 7, 2024

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

  • Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
  • Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

  • Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

  • Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
  • New features should be documented.
  • There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
  • There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

  • Is this flag really necessary?
  • Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

  • Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
  • If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

  • Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
  • Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
  • RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
  • If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
  • vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

@vitess-bot vitess-bot bot added NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says labels Nov 7, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot added this to the v22.0.0 milestone Nov 7, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 7, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 95.83333% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.39%. Comparing base (0b51839) to head (5994e0e).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
go/vt/mysqlctl/s3backupstorage/s3.go 95.83% 1 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17171      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.37%   67.39%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files        1573     1573              
  Lines      253113   253130      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits       170538   170592      +54     
+ Misses      82575    82538      -37     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.


🚨 Try these New Features:

@rvrangel rvrangel marked this pull request as ready for review November 7, 2024 20:57
@rvrangel rvrangel changed the title add S3 minimum part sized defined by the user add S3 minimum part size defined by the user Nov 7, 2024
@shlomi-noach shlomi-noach added Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature) Component: Backup and Restore labels Nov 8, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@mattlord mattlord left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM. Just a couple of minor comments.

@@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ Flags:
--remote_operation_timeout duration time to wait for a remote operation (default 15s)
--restart_before_backup Perform a mysqld clean/full restart after applying binlogs, but before taking the backup. Only makes sense to work around xtrabackup bugs.
--s3_backup_aws_endpoint string endpoint of the S3 backend (region must be provided).
--s3_backup_aws_minimum_partsize int Minimum part size to use (default 5242880)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit, but we use min in other existing flags so we can shorten this one as well. New flags should also use dashes rather than underscores as we want to transition to the latter for everything.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Since this flag is part of a group... we may actually just want to keep them all uniform...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I can change it to min, but do let me know if the preferred is to use the dashes instead of underscores for it :)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would favor uniformity for this config group over moving to dashes, and move these all together.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would probably spell out what the default is and add a period to be consistent with other flags in the same group. The default shown by the helper is not very intuitive at first.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

updated it :)

}

if minimumPartSize != 0 && partSizeBytes < minimumPartSize {
if minimumPartSize > 1024*1024*1024*5 || minimumPartSize < 1024*1024*5 { // 5GiB and 5MiB respectively
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where do these min and max values come from? I would hope that there are consts we can use instead?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

that's a great point. for the minimum, the SDK does define it, so we could use manager.MinUploadPartSize, but I don't see anything for the max. I will take a better look when I update the code for the flag change mentioned above, but we can at least change that one

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be better to use the constant provided by the SDK for the minimum. For the maximum there is none, it's fine to hardcode it but it should be a constant for clarity with a link to AWS's docs: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/qfacts.html

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

update it as well :)

@frouioui frouioui removed NeedsDescriptionUpdate The description is not clear or comprehensive enough, and needs work NeedsWebsiteDocsUpdate What it says NeedsIssue A linked issue is missing for this Pull Request NeedsBackportReason If backport labels have been applied to a PR, a justification is required labels Nov 19, 2024
shanth96 and others added 28 commits November 21, 2024 07:10
Signed-off-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: GitHub <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: frouioui <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florent Poinsard <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Harshit Gangal <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Derek Perkins <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
…. CUTOVER_THRESHOLD ...` command (vitessio#17126)

Signed-off-by: Shlomi Noach <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Dirkjan Bussink <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Eduardo J. Ortega U <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Renan Rangel <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: 'Renan Rangel' <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Component: Backup and Restore Type: Enhancement Logical improvement (somewhere between a bug and feature)
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Feature Request: Allow adjustment of the minimum S3 upload part size