Document approach to eventual consistency
There is probably a better place for this documentation but we'd like to move this elsewhere than a github issue. We can move this to a more appropriate location with the documentation effort. Signed-off-by: Stephen J Day <stephen.day@docker.com>master
							parent
							
								
									cf5839b019
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						2df6b670c6
					
				| 
						 | 
				
			
			@ -1,4 +1,50 @@
 | 
			
		|||
# Architecture
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
**TODO(stevvooe):** Discuss the architecture of the registry, internally and
 | 
			
		||||
externally, in a few different deployment scenarios.
 | 
			
		||||
externally, in a few different deployment scenarios.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
## Design
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
### Eventual Consistency
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
> **NOTE:** This section belongs somewhere, perhaps in a design document. We
 | 
			
		||||
> are leaving this here so the information is not lost.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
Running the registry on eventually consistent backends has been part of the
 | 
			
		||||
design from the beginning. This section covers some of the approaches to
 | 
			
		||||
dealing with this reality.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
There are a few classes of issues that we need to worry about when
 | 
			
		||||
implementing something on top of the storage drivers:
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
1. Read-After-Write consistency (see this [article on
 | 
			
		||||
   s3](http://shlomoswidler.com/2009/12/read-after-write-consistency-in-amazon.html)).
 | 
			
		||||
2. [Write-Write Conflicts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write%E2%80%93write_conflict).
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
In reality, the registry must worry about these kinds of errors when doing the
 | 
			
		||||
following:
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
1. Accepting data into a temporary upload file may not have latest data block
 | 
			
		||||
   yet (read-after-write).
 | 
			
		||||
2. Moving uploaded data into its blob location (write-write race).
 | 
			
		||||
3. Modifying the "current" manifest for given tag (write-write race).
 | 
			
		||||
4. A whole slew of operations around deletes (read-after-write, delete-write
 | 
			
		||||
   races, garbage collection, etc.).
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
The backend path layout employs a few techniques to avoid these problems:
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
1. Large writes are done to private upload directories. This alleviates most
 | 
			
		||||
   of the corruption potential under multiple writers by avoiding multiple
 | 
			
		||||
   writers.
 | 
			
		||||
2. Constraints in storage driver implementations, such as support for writing
 | 
			
		||||
   after the end of a file to extend it.
 | 
			
		||||
3. Digest verification to avoid data corruption.
 | 
			
		||||
4. Manifest files are stored by digest and cannot change.
 | 
			
		||||
5. All other non-content files (links, hashes, etc.) are written as an atomic
 | 
			
		||||
   unit. Anything that requires additions and deletions is broken out into
 | 
			
		||||
   separate "files". Last writer still wins.
 | 
			
		||||
 | 
			
		||||
Unfortunately, one must play this game when trying to build something like
 | 
			
		||||
this on top of eventually consistent storage systems. If we run into serious
 | 
			
		||||
problems, we can wrap the storagedrivers in a shared consistency layer but
 | 
			
		||||
that would increase complexity and hinder registry cluster performance.
 | 
			
		||||
| 
						 | 
				
			
			
 | 
			
		|||
		Loading…
	
		Reference in New Issue