cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "paul cannon (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-2434) range movements can violate consistency
Date Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:01:28 GMT


paul cannon commented on CASSANDRA-2434:

Ok, prospective approach to totally safe range movements:

Operational rules:
* Cassandra will not allow two range motion operations (move, bootstrap, decom) at the same
time on the same node.
* When a range motion operation is already pending, User should refrain from starting another
range motion operation (if either motion operation overlaps the arc-of-effect of the other)
until the gossip info about the first change has propagated to all affected nodes. (This is
more simply approximated by the "two minute rule".)
* Every point in the tokenspace has the same number of natural endpoints, and they're ordered
the same from the perspective of all nodes (is this an ok assumption?).
* It is User's responsibility to make sure that the right streaming source nodes are available.
If they're not, the range motion operation may fail.

* For any motion involving range _R_, there will be a stream from endpoint _EP_source_ to
endpoint _EP_dest_. Given the same information about what range motion operations are pending
(_TokenMetadata_) and the range _R_, there is a bijection from _EP_source_ to _EP_dest_, shared
by all nodes in the ring.
* Procedure to determine _EP_source_ from _EP_dest_:
** Let _REP_current_ be the existing (ordered) list of natural endpoints for _R_.
** Let _TM_future_ be a clone of the current _TokenMetadata_, but with all ongoing bootstraps,
moves, and decoms resolved and completed.
** Let _REP_future_ be the list of (ordered) natural endpoints for _R_ according to _TM_future_.
** Let _EPL_entering_ be the list of endpoints in _REP_future_ which are not in _REP_current_
(preserving their order in _REP_future_).
** Let _EPL_leaving_ be the list of endpoints in _REP_current_ which are not in _REP_future_
(preserving their order in _REP_current_).
** _EPL_entering_ and _EPL_leaving_ are of the same length.
** Let _Pos_ be the position/index of _EP_dest_ in _EPL_entering_.
** Let _EP_source_ be the endpoint at position _Pos_ in _EPL_leaving_.
* Intuitively, this is the same as the rule expressed earlier in this ticket (stream from
the node you'll replace), but also handles other ongoing range movements in the same token
* These rules can be pretty trivially inverted to determine _EP_dest_ from _EP_source_.
* When any node gets gossip about a range motion occurring with its token arc-of-effect, it
calculates (or recalculates) the streams in which it should be involved. Any ongoing streams
which are no longer necessary are canceled, and any newly necessary streams are instigated.

I tried to construct a ruleset without that last rearrange-ongoing-streams rule, but it ended
up with a pretty complicated set of extra restrictions, and a more complicated set of procedures
than this.

This set of rules might look complicated, but I think it should be fairly straightforward
to implement, and may even end up simpler overall than our current code.

Note that this procedure even maintains the consistency guarantee in cases like:

* In an RF=3 cluster with nodes A, E, and F, bootstrap B, C, and D in quick succession (E
streams to B, F streams to C, A streams to D)
* In an RF=3 cluster with nodes A, C, and E, bootstrap B, D, and F, and decommission A, C,
and E, all in quick succession (A streams to B, C streams to D, E streams to F)
* In an RF=3 cluster with nodes A, B, C, D, and E, decommission B and C in quick succession
(B streams to D, C streams to E)

> range movements can violate consistency
> ---------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2434
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Peter Schuller
>            Assignee: paul cannon
>             Fix For: 1.0.1
>         Attachments: 2434-3.patch.txt, 2434-testery.patch.txt
> My reading (a while ago) of the code indicates that there is no logic involved during
bootstrapping that avoids consistency level violations. If I recall correctly it just grabs
neighbors that are currently up.
> There are at least two issues I have with this behavior:
> * If I have a cluster where I have applications relying on QUORUM with RF=3, and bootstrapping
complete based on only one node, I have just violated the supposedly guaranteed consistency
semantics of the cluster.
> * Nodes can flap up and down at any time, so even if a human takes care to look at which
nodes are up and things about it carefully before bootstrapping, there's no guarantee.
> A complication is that not only does it depend on use-case where this is an issue (if
all you ever do you do at CL.ONE, it's fine); even in a cluster which is otherwise used for
QUORUM operations you may wish to accept less-than-quorum nodes during bootstrap in various
emergency situations.
> A potential easy fix is to have bootstrap take an argument which is the number of hosts
to bootstrap from, or to assume QUORUM if none is given.
> (A related concern is bootstrapping across data centers. You may *want* to bootstrap
to a local node and then do a repair to avoid sending loads of data across DC:s while still
achieving consistency. Or even if you don't care about the consistency issues, I don't think
there is currently a way to bootstrap from local nodes only.)
> Thoughts?

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see:


View raw message