during rolling upgrade, provide a more descriptive error
message and discourage rolling upgrade in such situations,
allowing users to take action.
additionally also rename `slashpath -> pathutil` to avoid
a slighly mis-pronounced usage of `path` package.
- using miniogo.ObjectInfo.UserMetadata is not correct
- using UserTags from Map->String() can change order
- ContentType comparison needs to be removed.
- Compare both lowercase and uppercase key names.
- do not silently error out constructing PutObjectOptions
if tag parsing fails
- avoid notification for empty object info, failed operations
should rely on valid objInfo for notification in all
situations
- optimize copyObject implementation, also introduce a new
replication event
- clone ObjectInfo() before scheduling for replication
- add additional headers for comparison
- remove strings.EqualFold comparison avoid unexpected bugs
- fix pool based proxying with multiple pools
- compare only specific metadata
Co-authored-by: Poorna Krishnamoorthy <poornas@users.noreply.github.com>
currently we had a restriction where older setups would
need to follow previous style of "stripe" count being same
expansion, we can relax that instead newer pools can be
expanded for older setups with newer constraints of
common parity ratio.
The user can see __XLDIR__ prefix in mc admin heal when the command
heals an empty object with a trailing slash. This commit decodes the
name of the object before sending it back to the upper level.
```
mc admin config set alias/ storage_class standard=EC:3
```
should only succeed if parity ratio is valid for all
server pools, if not we should fail proactively.
This PR also needs to bring other changes now that
we need to cater for variadic drive counts per pool.
Bonus fixes also various bugs reproduced with
- GetObjectWithPartNumber()
- CopyObjectPartWithOffsets()
- CopyObjectWithMetadata()
- PutObjectPart,PutObject with truncated streams
During expansion we need to validate if
- new deployment is expanded with newer constraints
- existing deployment is expanded with older constraints
- multiple server pools rejected if they have different
deploymentID and distribution algo
Current implementation requires server pools to have
same erasure stripe sizes, to facilitate same SLA
and expectations.
This PR allows server pools to be variadic, i.e they
do not have to be same erasure stripe sizes - instead
they should have SLA for parity ratio.
If the parity ratio cannot be guaranteed by the new
server pool, the deployment is rejected i.e server
pool expansion is not allowed.
Krishna Srinivas
Harshavardhana
Harshavardhana
Anis Elleuch
Ritesh H Shukla