cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "T Jake Luciani (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (CASSANDRA-2013) Add CL.TWO, CL.THREE; tweak CL documentation
Date Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:33:46 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2013?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12986675#action_12986675
] 

T Jake Luciani commented on CASSANDRA-2013:
-------------------------------------------

I can see how someone would want this with RF > 6  but who does that?

> Add CL.TWO, CL.THREE; tweak CL documentation
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2013
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2013
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Core
>            Reporter: Peter Schuller
>            Assignee: Peter Schuller
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 0.8
>
>         Attachments: 2013.txt
>
>
> Attaching draft patch to add CL.TWO and CL.THREE.
> Motivation for adding is that having to select between either ONE or QUORUM is too narrow
a choice for clusters with RF > 3. In such a case, it makes particular sense to want to
do writes at e.g. CL.TWO for durability purposes even though you are not looking to get strong
consistency with QUORUM. CL.THREE is the same argument. TWO and THREE felt reasonable; there
is no objective reason why stopping at THREE is the obvious choice.
> Technically one would want to specify an arbitrary number, but that is a much more significant
change. 
> Two open questions:
> (1) I adjusted the documentation of ConsistencyLevel to be more consistent and also to
reflect what I believe to be reality (for example, as far as I can tell QUORUM doesn't send
requests to all nodes as claimed in the .thrift file). I'm not terribly confident that I have
not missed something though.
> (2) There is at least one unresolved issue, which is this assertion check WriteResponseHandler:
>         assert 1 <= blockFor && blockFor <= 2 * Table.open(table).getReplicationStrategy().getReplicationFactor()
>             : String.format("invalid response count %d for replication factor %d",
>                             blockFor, Table.open(table).getReplicationStrategy().getReplicationFactor());
> At THREE, this causes an assertion failure on keyspace with RF=1. I would, as a user,
expect UnavailableException. However I am uncertain as to what to do about this assertion.
I think this highlights one TWO/THREE are different from previously existing CL:s, in that
they essentially hard-code replicate counts rather than expressing them in terms that can
by definition be served by the cluster at any RF.
> Given that with THREE (and not TWO, but that is only due to the implementation detail
that bootstrapping is involved) implies a replicate count that is independent of the replication
factor, there is essentially a new failure mode. It is suddenly possible for a consistency
level to be fundamentally incompatible with the RF. My gut reaction is to want UnavailableException
still, and that the assertion check can essentially be removed (other than the <= 1 part).
> If a different failure mode is desired, presumably it would not be an assertion failure
(which should indicate a Cassandra bug).  Maybe UnstisfiableConsistencyLevel? I propose just
adjusting the assertion (which has no equivalent in ReadCallback btw); giving a friendlier
error message in case of a CL/RF mismatch would be good, but doesn't feel worth introducing
extra complexity to deal with it.
> 'ant test' passes. I have tested w/ py_stress with a three-node cluster and an RF=3 keyspace
and with 1 and 2 nodes down, and get expected behavior (available or unavailable as a function
of nodes that are up).

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message