cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Kjellman (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-11349) MerkleTree mismatch when multiple range tombstones exists for the same partition and interval
Date Fri, 01 Apr 2016 20:26:25 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11349?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15222297#comment-15222297
] 

Michael Kjellman commented on CASSANDRA-11349:
----------------------------------------------

[~spodxx@gmail.com] [~slebresne] [~frousseau] I'm confused here. Why should repair be special
cased over normal compaction in this case? If the times are different then you *do* still
need to resolve it as you need to take the greater time.

It seems to me the crux of the current patch is to "fix" this by special casing the comparator
to just compare just the max value of the interval during repair validation:

{code}
    // only compare interval, but not deletion time
+  return AbstractCellNameType.this.compare(((RangeTombstone)c1).max, ((RangeTombstone)c2).max);
{code}

I just did my best to merge and compare the code between 2.0 and 2.1 and I'm still trying
to parse how this code is different in 2.0 vs. 2.1... We've been unable to reproduce this
in 2.0 so far, but the bits of the code being touched here don't seem to be different so I'm
trying to understand why 2.1 would hit this and not 2.0.

Could you please explain a bit more why we we can ignore the timestamp?


> MerkleTree mismatch when multiple range tombstones exists for the same partition and
interval
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-11349
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11349
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Fabien Rousseau
>            Assignee: Stefan Podkowinski
>              Labels: repair
>             Fix For: 2.1.x, 2.2.x
>
>         Attachments: 11349-2.1.patch
>
>
> We observed that repair, for some of our clusters, streamed a lot of data and many partitions
were "out of sync".
> Moreover, the read repair mismatch ratio is around 3% on those clusters, which is really
high.
> After investigation, it appears that, if two range tombstones exists for a partition
for the same range/interval, they're both included in the merkle tree computation.
> But, if for some reason, on another node, the two range tombstones were already compacted
into a single range tombstone, this will result in a merkle tree difference.
> Currently, this is clearly bad because MerkleTree differences are dependent on compactions
(and if a partition is deleted and created multiple times, the only way to ensure that repair
"works correctly"/"don't overstream data" is to major compact before each repair... which
is not really feasible).
> Below is a list of steps allowing to easily reproduce this case:
> {noformat}
> ccm create test -v 2.1.13 -n 2 -s
> ccm node1 cqlsh
> CREATE KEYSPACE test_rt WITH replication = {'class': 'SimpleStrategy', 'replication_factor':
2};
> USE test_rt;
> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table1 (
>     c1 text,
>     c2 text,
>     c3 float,
>     c4 float,
>     PRIMARY KEY ((c1), c2)
> );
> INSERT INTO table1 (c1, c2, c3, c4) VALUES ( 'a', 'b', 1, 2);
> DELETE FROM table1 WHERE c1 = 'a' AND c2 = 'b';
> ctrl ^d
> # now flush only one of the two nodes
> ccm node1 flush 
> ccm node1 cqlsh
> USE test_rt;
> INSERT INTO table1 (c1, c2, c3, c4) VALUES ( 'a', 'b', 1, 3);
> DELETE FROM table1 WHERE c1 = 'a' AND c2 = 'b';
> ctrl ^d
> ccm node1 repair
> # now grep the log and observe that there was some inconstencies detected between nodes
(while it shouldn't have detected any)
> ccm node1 showlog | grep "out of sync"
> {noformat}
> Consequences of this are a costly repair, accumulating many small SSTables (up to thousands
for a rather short period of time when using VNodes, the time for compaction to absorb those
small files), but also an increased size on disk.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message