## Problem
It appears that the Azure storage API tends to hang TCP connections more
than S3 does.
Currently we use a 2 minute timeout for all downloads. This is large
because sometimes the objects we download are large. However, waiting 2
minutes when doing something like downloading a manifest on tenant
attach is problematic, because when someone is doing a "create tenant,
create timeline" workflow, that 2 minutes is long enough for them
reasonably to give up creating that timeline.
Rather than propagate oversized timeouts further up the stack, we should
use a different timeout for objects that we expect to be small.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/9836
## Summary of changes
- Add a `small_timeout` configuration attribute to remote storage,
defaulting to 30 seconds (still a very generous period to do something
like download an index)
- Add a DownloadKind parameter to DownloadOpts, so that callers can
indicate whether they expect the object to be small or large.
- In the azure client, use small timeout for HEAD requests, and for GET
requests if DownloadKind::Small is used.
- Use DownloadKind::Small for manifests, indices, and heatmap downloads.
This PR intentionally does not make the equivalent change to the S3
client, to reduce blast radius in case this has unexpected consequences
(we could accomplish the same thing by editing lots of configs, but just
skipping the code is simpler for right now)
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: Stas Kelvic <stas@neon.tech>
# Context
This PR contains PoC-level changes for a product feature that allows
onboarding large databases into Neon without going through the regular
data path.
# Changes
This internal RFC provides all the context
* https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/pull/19799
In the language of the RFC, this PR covers
* the Importer code (`fast_import`)
* all the Pageserver changes (mgmt API changes, flow implementation,
etc)
* a basic test for the Pageserver changes
# Reviewing
As acknowledged in the RFC, the code added in this PR is not ready for
general availability.
Also, the **architecture is not to be discussed in this PR**, but in the
RFC and associated Slack channel instead.
Reviewers of this PR should take that into consideration.
The quality bar to apply during review depends on what area of the code
is being reviewed:
* Importer code (`fast_import`): practically anything goes
* Core flow (`flow.rs`):
* Malicious input data must be expected and the existing threat models
apply.
* The code must not be safe to execute on *dedicated* Pageserver
instances:
* This means in particular that tenants *on other* Pageserver instances
must not be affected negatively wrt data confidentiality, integrity or
availability.
* Other code: the usual quality bar
* Pay special attention to correct use of gate guards, timeline
cancellation in all places during shutdown & migration, etc.
* Consider the broader system impact; if you find potentially
problematic interactions with Storage features that were not covered in
the RFC, bring that up during the review.
I recommend submitting three separate reviews, for the three high-level
areas with different quality bars.
# References
(Internal-only)
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/17507
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/company_projects/issues/293
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/company_projects/issues/309
* refs https://github.com/neondatabase/cloud/issues/20646
---------
Co-authored-by: Stas Kelvich <stas.kelvich@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@neon.tech>
Co-authored-by: John Spray <john@neon.tech>
