Fixes#2480. For certain definition of "fixes".
This is something that should never happen. Sadly, it does happen,
albeit extremely rarely. This could be some weird cornercase we
haven't covered yet. Or it happens as a consequesnce of data
corruption or a crash recovery gone bad.
This is not a "real" fix as we don't know the root cause of the
incident reported in #2480. However, this makes sure the server does
not crash, but deals gracefully with the problem: The series in
question is quarantined, which even makes it available for forensics.
This is a fairly easy attempt to dynamically evict chunks based on the
heap size. A target heap size has to be set as a command line flage,
so that users can essentially say "utilize 4GiB of RAM, and please
don't OOM".
The -storage.local.max-chunks-to-persist and
-storage.local.memory-chunks flags are deprecated by this
change. Backwards compatibility is provided by ignoring
-storage.local.max-chunks-to-persist and use
-storage.local.memory-chunks to set the new
-storage.local.target-heap-size to a reasonable (and conservative)
value (both with a warning).
This also makes the metrics intstrumentation more consistent (in
naming and implementation) and cleans up a few quirks in the tests.
Answers to anticipated comments:
There is a chance that Go 1.9 will allow programs better control over
the Go memory management. I don't expect those changes to be in
contradiction with the approach here, but I do expect them to
complement them and allow them to be more precise and controlled. In
any case, once those Go changes are available, this code has to be
revisted.
One might be tempted to let the user specify an estimated value for
the RSS usage, and then internall set a target heap size of a certain
fraction of that. (In my experience, 2/3 is a fairly safe bet.)
However, investigations have shown that RSS size and its relation to
the heap size is really really complicated. It depends on so many
factors that I wouldn't even start listing them in a commit
description. It depends on many circumstances and not at least on the
risk trade-off of each individual user between RAM utilization and
probability of OOMing during a RAM usage peak. To not add even more to
the confusion, we need to stick to the well-defined number we also use
in the targeting here, the sum of the sizes of heap objects.
When using the chunking code in other projects (both Weave Prism and
ChronixDB ingester), you sometimes want to know how well you are
utilizing your chunks when closing/storing them.
This is a followup to https://github.com/prometheus/prometheus/pull/2011.
This publishes more of the methods and other names of the chunk code and
moves the chunk code to its own package. There's some unavoidable
ugliness: the chunk and chunkDesc metrics are used by both packages, so
I had to move them to the chunk package. That isn't great, but I don't
see how to do it better without a larger redesign of everything. Same
for the evict requests and some other types.
