Mailing-List: contact commits-help@cassandra.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 18:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: "T Jake Luciani (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: commits@cassandra.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12503655.1302197035356.110423.1393438221794@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12503655.1302197035356@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12503655.1302197035356@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-2434) range movements can violate
 consistency
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13913251#comment-13913251 ] 

T Jake Luciani commented on CASSANDRA-2434:
-------------------------------------------

I will try working on a relocate test and look at addressing this

> range movements can violate consistency
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2434
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2434
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Peter Schuller
>            Assignee: T Jake Luciani
>             Fix For: 2.1 beta2
>
>         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 was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)