~bzr-pqm/bzr/bzr.dev

6 by mbp at sourcefrog
import all docs from arch
1
Interrupted operations
2
**********************
3
4
Problem: interrupted operations
5
===============================
6
7
Many version control systems tend to have trouble when operations are
8
interrupted.  This can happen in various ways:
9
10
 * user hits Ctrl-C
11
12
 * program hits a bug and aborts
13
14
 * machine crashes
15
16
 * network goes down
17
18
 * tree is naively copied (e.g. by cp/tar) while an operation is in
19
   progress
20
21
We can reduce the window during which operations can be interrupted:
22
most importantly, by receiving everything off the network into a
23
staging area, so that network interruptions won't leave a job half
24
complete.  But it is not possible to totally avoid this, because the
25
power can always fail.
26
27
I think we can reasonably rely on flushing to stable storage at
28
various points, and trust that such files will be accessible when we
29
come back up.
30
31
I think by using this and building from the bottom up there are never
32
any broken pointers in the branch metadata: first we add the file
33
versions, then the inventory, then the revision and signature, then
34
link them into the revision history.  The worst that can happen is
35
that there will be some orphaned files if this is interrupted at any
36
point. 
37
38
rsync is just impossible in the general case: it reads the files in a
39
fairly unpredictable order, so what it copies may not be a tree that
40
existed at any particular point in time.  If people want to make
41
backups or replicate using rsync they need to treat it like any other
42
database and either
43
44
 * make a copy which will not be updated, and rsync from that
45
46
 * lock the database while rsyncing
47
48
The operating system facilities are not sufficient to protect against
49
all of these.  We cannot satisfactorily commit a whole atomic
50
transaction in one step.
51
52
Operations might be updating either the metadata or the working copy.
53
54
The working copy is in some ways more difficult:
55
56
 * Other processes are allowed to modify it from time to time in
57
   arbitrary ways.
58
59
   If they modify it while bazaar is working then they will lose, but
60
   we should at least try to make sure there is no corruption.
61
62
 * We can't atomically replace the whole working copy.  We can
63
   (semi) atomically updated particular files.
64
254 by Martin Pool
- Doc cleanups from Magnus Therning
65
 * If the working copy files are in a weird state it is hard to know
6 by mbp at sourcefrog
import all docs from arch
66
   whether that occurred because bzr's work was interrupted or because
67
   the user changed them.
68
69
   (A reasonable user might run ``bzr revert`` if they notice
70
   something like this has happened, but it would be nice to avoid
71
   it.)
72
73
We don't want to leave things in a broken state.
74
75
76
Solution: write-ahead journaling?
77
=================================
78
79
One possibly solution might be write-ahead journaling:
80
81
  Before beginning a change, write and flush to disk a description of
82
  what change will be made.
83
84
  Every bzr operation checks this journal; if there are any pending
85
  operations waiting then they are completed first, before proceeding
86
  with whatever the user wanted.  (Perhaps this should be in a
87
  separate ``bzr recover``, but I think it's better to just do it,
88
  perhaps with a warning.)
89
90
  The descriptions written into the journal need to be simple enough
91
  that they can safely be re-run in a totally different context.  They
92
  must not depend on any external resources which might have gone
93
  away.
94
95
  If we can do anything without depending on journalling we should.
96
97
  It may be that the only case where we cannot get by with just
98
  ordering is in updating the working copy; the user might get into a
99
  difficult situation where they have pulled in a change and only half
100
  the working copy has been updated.  One solution would be to remove
101
  the working copy files, or mark them readonly, while this is in
102
  progress.  We don't want people accidentally writing to a file that
103
  needs to be overwritten.
104
105
  Or perhaps, in this particular case, it is OK to leave them in
106
  pointing to an old state, and let people revert if they're sure they
107
  want the new one?  Sounds dangerous.
108
109
Aaron points out that this basically sounds like changesets.  So
110
before updating the history, we first calculate the changeset and
111
write it out to stable storage as a single file.  We then apply the
112
changeset, possibly updating several files.  Each command should check
113
whether such an application was in progress.