Month: July 2011

Refactoring our writeback system

Tracker writes back certain metadata to your files. It for example writes back in XMP the title of a JPeg file, among other fields that XMP supports.

We had a service that runs in the background waiting for signals coming from the RDF store that tell it to perform a writeback.

To avoid that our FS miner would pick up the changes that the writeback service made, and that way index the file again, we introduced a D-Bus API for our FS miner called IgnoreNextUpdate. When the API is issued will the FS miner ignore the first next filesystem event that would otherwise be handled on a specific file.

That API is now among our biggest sources of race conditions. Although we wont remove it from 0.10 due to API promises, we don’t like it and want to get rid of it. Or at least we want to replace all its users.

To get rid of it we of course had to change the writeback service in a way that it wouldn’t need the API call on the FS miner any longer.

The solution we came up with was to move the handling of the signal and the queuing to the FS miner‘s process. There we have all the control we need.

The original reason why writing back was done as a service was to be robust against the libraries, used for the actual writeback, crashing or hanging. We wanted to keep this capability, so just like the extractor is a portion of the writeback system going to run out of process of the FS miner.

When a queued writeback task is to be run, an IPC call to a writeback process is made and returns only when it’s finished. Then the next task in the queue, in the FS miner, is selected. A lot like how the extracting of metadata works.

We have and will be working on this in the writeback-refactor branches next few days.

The ever growing journal problem

Current upstream situation

In Tracker‘s RDF store we journal all inserts and deletes. When we replay the journal, we replay every event that ever happened. That way you end up in precisely the same situation as when the last journal entry was appended. We use the journal also for making a backup. At restore we remove the SQLite database, put your backup file where the journal belongs, and replay it.

We also use the journal to cope with ontology changes. When an ontology change takes place for which we have no support using SQLite’s limited ALTER, we replay the journal over a new SQLite database schema. While we replay we ignore errors; some ontology changes can cause loss of data (ie. removal of a property or class).

This journal has a few problems:

  • First the obvious space problem: when you insert a lot of data and later remove it all; instead of consuming no space at all it consumes twice the amount of space for an empty database. Unless you remove the journal, you can’t get it back. It’s all textual data so even when trying really, really hard wont you consume gigabytes that way. Nowadays are typical hard drives several hundreds of gigabytes in size. But yes, it’s definitely not nice.
  • Second problem is less obvious, but far worse: your privacy. When you delete data you expect it to be gone. Especially when a lot of desktop interaction involves inserting or deleting data with Tracker. For example recently visited websites. When a user wants to permanently remove his browser history, he doesn’t want us to keep a copy of the insert and the delete of that information. With some effort it’s still retrievable. That’s not only bad, it’s a defect!

This was indeed not acceptable for Nokia’s N9. We decided to come up with an ad-hoc solution which we plan to someday replace with a permanent solution. I’ll discuss the permanent solution last.

The ad-hoc solution for the N9

For the N9 we decided to add a compile option to disable our own journal and instead use SQLite’s synchronous journaling. In this mode SQLite guarantees safe writes using fsync.

Before we didn’t use synchronous journaling of SQLite and had it replaced with our own journal for earlier features (backup, ontology change coping) but also, more importantly, because the N9’s storage hardware has a high latency on fsync: we wanted to take full control by using our own journal. Also because at first we were told it wouldn’t be possible to force-shutdown the device, and then this suddenly was again possible in some ways: we needed high performance plus we don’t want to lose your data, ever.

The storage space issue was less severe: the device’s storage capacity is huge compared to the significance of that problem. However, we did not want the privacy issue so I managed to get ourselves the right priorities for this problem before any launch of the N9.

The performance was significantly worse with SQLite’s synchronous journaling, so we implemented manual checkpointing in a background thread for our usage of SQLite. With this we have more control over when fsync happens on SQLite’s WAL journal. After some tuning we got comparable performance figures even with our high latency storage hardware.

We of course replaced the backup / restore to just use a copy of the SQLite database using SQLite’s backup API.

Above solution means that we lost an important feature: coping with certain ontology changes. It’s true that the N9 will not cope with just any ontology change, whereas upstream Tracker does cope with more kinds of ontology changes.

The solution for the N9 will be pragmatic: we won’t do any ontology changes, on any future release that is to be deployed on the phone, that we can’t cope with, unless the new ontology gets shipped alongside a new release of Tracker that is specifically adapted and tested to cope with that ontology change.

Planned permanent solution for upstream

The permanent solution will probably be one where the custom journal isn’t disabled and periodically gets truncated to have a first transaction that contains an entire copy of the SQLite database. This doesn’t completely solve the privacy issue, but we can provide an API to make the truncating happen at a specific time, wiping deleted information from the journal.