cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "paul cannon (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-2434) node bootstrapping can violate consistency
Date Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:01:11 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13097190#comment-13097190
] 

paul cannon commented on CASSANDRA-2434:
----------------------------------------

bq. I'm not sure I understand, are you saying that B would violate this, or just that the
status quo does?

I'm saying B would violate this, yes. B was "bootstrap from the right token, but if that one
isn't up, bootstrap from any other token preferring the closer ones", right? I'm saying we
can't just automatically choose another token if the user didn't specifically say it's ok.

> node bootstrapping can violate consistency
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2434
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Peter Schuller
>            Assignee: paul cannon
>             Fix For: 1.1
>
>         Attachments: 2434.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: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message