Open
Conversation
This entails pretty involved changes to the restoration code paths
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This entails pretty involved changes to the restoration code paths.
The gist is that the backup module keeps track of which labels it has created, and the pruning module gets rid of any labels which are older than
config['ttl']hours. It then treats the remaining labels as roots of a DAG, and walks the DAG finding all objects which it should preserve. Then it deletes in objects in S3 which are not in the DAG.I found the concurrency issues between backup and pruning hard to reason about, so I decided to enforce mutual exclusion between the two processes.