2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
// Copyright (c) Tailscale Inc & AUTHORS
|
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
package taildrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
"bytes"
|
|
|
|
"crypto/sha256"
|
|
|
|
"encoding/hex"
|
|
|
|
"fmt"
|
|
|
|
"io"
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
"io/fs"
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
"os"
|
|
|
|
"slices"
|
|
|
|
"strings"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
|
|
blockSize = int64(64 << 10)
|
|
|
|
hashAlgorithm = "sha256"
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// BlockChecksum represents the checksum for a single block.
|
|
|
|
type BlockChecksum struct {
|
|
|
|
Checksum Checksum `json:"checksum"`
|
|
|
|
Algorithm string `json:"algo"` // always "sha256" for now
|
|
|
|
Size int64 `json:"size"` // always (64<<10) for now
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Checksum is an opaque checksum that is comparable.
|
|
|
|
type Checksum struct{ cs [sha256.Size]byte }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func hash(b []byte) Checksum {
|
|
|
|
return Checksum{sha256.Sum256(b)}
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (cs Checksum) String() string {
|
|
|
|
return hex.EncodeToString(cs.cs[:])
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (cs Checksum) AppendText(b []byte) ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return hexAppendEncode(b, cs.cs[:]), nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (cs Checksum) MarshalText() ([]byte, error) {
|
|
|
|
return hexAppendEncode(nil, cs.cs[:]), nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
func (cs *Checksum) UnmarshalText(b []byte) error {
|
|
|
|
if len(b) != 2*len(cs.cs) {
|
|
|
|
return fmt.Errorf("invalid hex length: %d", len(b))
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
_, err := hex.Decode(cs.cs[:], b)
|
|
|
|
return err
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO(https://go.dev/issue/53693): Use hex.AppendEncode instead.
|
|
|
|
func hexAppendEncode(dst, src []byte) []byte {
|
|
|
|
n := hex.EncodedLen(len(src))
|
|
|
|
dst = slices.Grow(dst, n)
|
|
|
|
hex.Encode(dst[len(dst):][:n], src)
|
|
|
|
return dst[:len(dst)+n]
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// PartialFiles returns a list of partial files in [Handler.Dir]
|
|
|
|
// that were sent (or is actively being sent) by the provided id.
|
|
|
|
func (m *Manager) PartialFiles(id ClientID) (ret []string, err error) {
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if m == nil || m.opts.Dir == "" {
|
2023-10-13 15:21:15 +00:00
|
|
|
return nil, ErrNoTaildrop
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if m.opts.DirectFileMode && m.opts.AvoidFinalRename {
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return nil, nil // resuming is not supported for users that peek at our file structure
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
suffix := id.partialSuffix()
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if err := rangeDir(m.opts.Dir, func(de fs.DirEntry) bool {
|
|
|
|
if name := de.Name(); strings.HasSuffix(name, suffix) {
|
|
|
|
ret = append(ret, name)
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
}); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
return ret, redactError(err)
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return ret, nil
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// HashPartialFile returns a function that hashes the next block in the file,
|
|
|
|
// starting from the beginning of the file.
|
|
|
|
// It returns (BlockChecksum{}, io.EOF) when the stream is complete.
|
|
|
|
// It is the caller's responsibility to call close.
|
|
|
|
func (m *Manager) HashPartialFile(id ClientID, baseName string) (next func() (BlockChecksum, error), close func() error, err error) {
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if m == nil || m.opts.Dir == "" {
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return nil, nil, ErrNoTaildrop
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
noopNext := func() (BlockChecksum, error) { return BlockChecksum{}, io.EOF }
|
|
|
|
noopClose := func() error { return nil }
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
if m.opts.DirectFileMode && m.opts.AvoidFinalRename {
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return noopNext, noopClose, nil // resuming is not supported for users that peek at our file structure
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-17 20:46:05 +00:00
|
|
|
dstFile, err := joinDir(m.opts.Dir, baseName)
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return nil, nil, err
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
f, err := os.Open(dstFile + id.partialSuffix())
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
if os.IsNotExist(err) {
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return noopNext, noopClose, nil
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return nil, nil, redactError(err)
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b := make([]byte, blockSize) // TODO: Pool this?
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
next = func() (BlockChecksum, error) {
|
|
|
|
switch n, err := io.ReadFull(f, b); {
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
case err != nil && err != io.EOF && err != io.ErrUnexpectedEOF:
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BlockChecksum{}, redactError(err)
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
case n == 0:
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BlockChecksum{}, io.EOF
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
default:
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
return BlockChecksum{hash(b[:n]), hashAlgorithm, int64(n)}, nil
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
close = f.Close
|
|
|
|
return next, close, nil
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// ResumeReader reads and discards the leading content of r
|
|
|
|
// that matches the content based on the checksums that exist.
|
|
|
|
// It returns the number of bytes consumed,
|
|
|
|
// and returns an [io.Reader] representing the remaining content.
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
func ResumeReader(r io.Reader, hashNext func() (BlockChecksum, error)) (int64, io.Reader, error) {
|
|
|
|
if hashNext == nil {
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return 0, r, nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var offset int64
|
|
|
|
b := make([]byte, 0, blockSize)
|
|
|
|
for {
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// Obtain the next block checksum from the remote peer.
|
|
|
|
cs, err := hashNext()
|
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
case err == io.EOF:
|
|
|
|
return offset, io.MultiReader(bytes.NewReader(b), r), nil
|
|
|
|
case err != nil:
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return offset, io.MultiReader(bytes.NewReader(b), r), err
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
case cs.Algorithm != hashAlgorithm || cs.Size < 0 || cs.Size > blockSize:
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return offset, io.MultiReader(bytes.NewReader(b), r), fmt.Errorf("invalid block size or hashing algorithm")
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// Read the contents of the next block.
|
2023-10-19 20:26:55 +00:00
|
|
|
n, err := io.ReadFull(r, b[:cs.Size])
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
b = b[:n]
|
|
|
|
if err == io.EOF || err == io.ErrUnexpectedEOF {
|
|
|
|
err = nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
if len(b) == 0 || err != nil {
|
|
|
|
// This should not occur in practice.
|
|
|
|
// It implies that an error occurred reading r,
|
|
|
|
// or that the partial file on the remote side is fully complete.
|
|
|
|
return offset, io.MultiReader(bytes.NewReader(b), r), err
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
// Compare the local and remote block checksums.
|
|
|
|
// If it mismatches, then resume from this point.
|
|
|
|
if cs.Checksum != hash(b) {
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
return offset, io.MultiReader(bytes.NewReader(b), r), nil
|
|
|
|
}
|
taildrop: switch hashing to be streaming based (#9861)
While the previous logic was correct, it did not perform well.
Resuming is a dance between the client and server, where
1. the client requests hashes for a partial file,
2. the server then computes those hashes,
3. the client computes hashes locally and compares them.
4. goto 1 while the partial file still has data
While step 2 is running, the client is sitting idle.
While step 3 is running, the server is sitting idle.
By streaming over the block hash immediately after the server
computes it, the client can start checking the hash,
while the server works on the next hash (in a pipelined manner).
This performs dramatically better and also uses less memory
as we don't need to hold a list of hashes, but only need to
handle one hash at a time.
There are two detriments to this approach:
* The HTTP API relies on a JSON stream,
which is not a standard REST-like pattern.
However, since we implement both client and server,
this is fine.
* While the stream is on-going, we hold an open file handle
on the server side while the file is being hashed.
On really slow streams, this could hold a file open forever.
Updates tailscale/corp#14772
Signed-off-by: Joe Tsai <joetsai@digital-static.net>
Co-authored-by: Rhea Ghosh <rhea@tailscale.com>
2023-10-18 00:53:40 +00:00
|
|
|
offset += int64(len(b))
|
|
|
|
b = b[:0]
|
2023-10-12 23:50:11 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
}
|