cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus Eriksson (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-8911) Consider Mutation-based Repairs
Date Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:01:13 GMT


Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-8911:

wip branch for this here:

It mostly follows what [~thobbs] outlined above:
* The repairing node pages through its local data with page size = {{WINDOW_SIZE}}, [calculating
a hash|]
for a page and sends the hash to its replicas. We figure out the {{start}} and {{end}} "keys"
(partition key + clustering) that the remote nodes should compare the hash for. Repairing
node sends a [RepairPage|]
containing the needed information.
* The replicas [read up|]
the local data between the {{start}}/{{end}} keys above with a limit of {{WINDOW_SIZE * 2}}
** If the hashes match, we reply that the data matched
** If we hit the limit when reading within the {{start}}/{{end}}, we consider this a "huge"
response and we handle that separately - we reply to the repairing node that we have many
rows between {{start}}/{{end}}, and the repairing node will page back the data from that node.
This can happen if the repairing node has lost an sstable for example.
** If the hashes don't match, we reply with the data and the repairing node will diff its
data within the window with the remote data and only write the differences to the memtable

Regarding page cache pollution I think we should handle this as normal reads, first, the intention
is to read through the data slowly so we won't blow out all the 'real' pages in a short time,
and second, we will read the data twice within a very short time span if there is a mismatch,
so the page cache should make the impact of this smaller.

*Discussion points:*
* How do we make repair invisible to the operator? (continuous process, calculate how many
rows/s we need to repair etc)
* Can we handle gcgs in a better way with this?
* Can we avoid anticompaction? Do we really need it to be incremental? (probably, but having
a single thread page through the entire dataset should be something the cluster can handle)

* Properly handle the "huge" responses above - need to have a way for the remote paging to
return {{UnfilteredPartitionIterator}}s
* Make it incremental - currently reads all data and puts the differences in the regular memtable.
We could probably have a separate memtable that is flushed to a repaired sstable.
* Avoid breaking DTCS etc, since all mutations go into the same memtable, the flushed sstable
will cover a big time window. Best solution to this would probably be to make flushing write
to several sstables as that would help with other DTCS issues as well (read repair, USING
* Write tests / benchmarks / ...
* More metrics - we can get very accurate metrics on how much data was actually diffing during
the repair

If anyone wants to try it out, there is a JMX method {{enableMutationBasedRepair}} on the
{{ColumnFamilyStoreMBean}} to enable it (it pages through and repairs all the data once).

> Consider Mutation-based Repairs
> -------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-8911
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Tyler Hobbs
>            Assignee: Marcus Eriksson
>             Fix For: 3.x
> We should consider a mutation-based repair to replace the existing streaming repair.
 While we're at it, we could do away with a lot of the complexity around merkle trees.
> I have not planned this out in detail, but here's roughly what I'm thinking:
>  * Instead of building an entire merkle tree up front, just send the "leaves" one-by-one.
 Instead of dealing with token ranges, make the leaves primary key ranges.  The PK ranges
would need to be contiguous, so that the start of each range would match the end of the previous
range. (The first and last leaves would need to be open-ended on one end of the PK range.)
This would be similar to doing a read with paging.
>  * Once one page of data is read, compute a hash of it and send it to the other replicas
along with the PK range that it covers and a row count.
>  * When the replicas receive the hash, the perform a read over the same PK range (using
a LIMIT of the row count + 1) and compare hashes (unless the row counts don't match, in which
case this can be skipped).
>  * If there is a mismatch, the replica will send a mutation covering that page's worth
of data (ignoring the row count this time) to the source node.
> Here are the advantages that I can think of:
>  * With the current repair behavior of streaming, vnode-enabled clusters may need to
stream hundreds of small SSTables.  This results in increased compact
> ion load on the receiving node.  With the mutation-based approach, memtables would naturally
merge these.
>  * It's simple to throttle.  For example, you could give a number of rows/sec that should
be repaired.
>  * It's easy to see what PK range has been repaired so far.  This could make it simpler
to resume a repair that fails midway.
>  * Inconsistencies start to be repaired almost right away.
>  * Less special code \(?\)
>  * Wide partitions are no longer a problem.
> There are a few problems I can think of:
>  * Counters.  I don't know if this can be made safe, or if they need to be skipped.
>  * To support incremental repair, we need to be able to read from only repaired sstables.
 Probably not too difficult to do.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message