accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF subversion and git services (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2925) Timestamp is not propagated to peer
Date Fri, 20 Jun 2014 01:26:26 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14038227#comment-14038227
] 

ASF subversion and git services commented on ACCUMULO-2925:
-----------------------------------------------------------

Commit 03c93c9dd74abadad027cec6a934c92fd1d58f8c in accumulo's branch refs/heads/master from
[~elserj]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=accumulo.git;h=03c93c9 ]

ACCUMULO-2925 Need to preserve replicationSource on the Mutation

The replicationSource on the Mutation is the information which prevents cycles
in the replication graph from infinitely replicating information. Each replicationSource
on a Mutation is the `replication.name` for a system from which that Mutation came.

We can later use this set to determine if we need to replicate this Mutation
to a given peer by observing if the `replication.name` of our peer already
exists in the replicationSources.


> Timestamp is not propagated to peer
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2925
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2925
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: replication
>            Reporter: Josh Elser
>            Assignee: Josh Elser
>            Priority: Blocker
>             Fix For: 1.7.0
>
>
> Wrote a test that was doing some more intense verification of equality of two tables
and I was surprised to find that the tables were in fact not equal.
> Digging into it some more, I eventually found that the keys and values were identical,
save for the timestamp. Despite the Mutations coming from the local WAL having timestamps
set by the server, these got lost.
> Specifically, the "real" timestamp is stored on the ServerMutation, not each ColumnUpdate.
On the peer, when the BatchWriter makes a shallow copy of the (Server)Mutation to apply on
the target table for replication, we lose that ServerMutation and get a "regular" Mutation
which has updates that don't have any timestamp set. If the BatchWriter didn't make the shallow
copy, this should work.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)

Mime
View raw message