## Problem
The intent of this parameter is to have pageservers consider themselves
"full" if they've got lots of shards, even if they have plenty of
capacity. It works, but because we typically successfully oversubscribe
capacity up to 200%, the MAX_SHARDS limit is effectively doubled, so
this 20,000 value ends up meaning 40,000, whereas the original intent
was to limit nodes to ~10000 shards.
## Summary of changes
- Change MAX_SHARDS to 5000, so that a node with 5000 will get a 100%
utilization, which is equivalent in practice to being considered "half
full" by the storage controller in capacity terms.
This is all a bit subtle and indiret. Originally the limit was baked
into the pageserver with the idea that the pageserver knows better what
its own resources tolerate than the storage controller does, but in
practice it would be probably be easier to understand all this if we
just did it controller-side. So there's scope to refactor here in
future.
## Problem
Previously, the controller only used the shard counts for scheduling.
This works well when hosting only many-sharded tenants, but works much
less well when hosting single-sharded tenants that have a greater
deviation in size-per-shard.
Closes: https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/7798
## Summary of changes
- Instead of UtilizationScore, carry the full PageserverUtilization
through into the Scheduler.
- Use the PageserverUtilization::score() instead of shard count when
ordering nodes in scheduling.
Q: Why did test_sharding_split_smoke need updating in this PR?
A: There's an interesting side effect during shard splits: because we do
not decrement the shard count in the utilization when we de-schedule the
shards from before the split, the controller will now prefer to pick
_different_ nodes for shards compared with which ones held secondaries
before the split. We could use our knowledge of splitting to fix up the
utilizations more actively in this situation, but I'm leaning toward
leaving the code simpler, as in practical systems the impact of one
shard on the utilization of a node should be fairly low (single digit
%).
## Problem
When the utilization API was added, it was just a stub with disk space
information.
Disk space information isn't a very good metric for assigning tenants to
pageservers, because pageservers making full use of their disks would
always just have 85% utilization, irrespective of how much pressure they
had for disk space.
## Summary of changes
- Use the new layer visibiilty metric to calculate a "wanted size" per
tenant, and sum these to get a total local disk space wanted per
pageserver. This acts as the primary signal for utilization.
- Also use the shard count to calculate a utilization score, and take
the max of this and the disk-driven utilization. The shard count limit
is currently set as a constant 20,000, which matches contemporary
operational practices when loading pageservers.
The shard count limit means that for tiny/empty tenants, on a machine
with 3.84TB disk, each tiny tenant influences the utilization score as
if it had size 160MB.
## Problem
We have two places that use a helper (`ser_rfc3339_millis`) to get serde
to stringify SystemTimes into the desired format.
## Summary of changes
Created a new module `utils::serde_system_time` and inside it a wrapper
type `SystemTime` for `std::time::SystemTime` that
serializes/deserializes to the RFC3339 format.
This new type is then used in the two places that were previously using
the helper for serialization, thereby eliminating the need to decorate
structs.
Closes#7151.
We can currently underflow `pageserver_resident_physical_size_global`,
so the used disk bytes would show `u63::MAX` by mistake. The assumption
of the API (and the documented behavior) was to give the layer files
disk usage.
Switch to reporting numbers that match `df` output.
Fixes: #7336
PR adds a simple at most 1Hz refreshed informational API for querying
pageserver utilization. In this first phase, no actual background
calculation is performed. Instead, the worst possible score is always
returned. The returned bytes information is however correct.
Cc: #6835
Cc: #5331
