cassandra-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Mueller <carl.muel...@smartthings.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: postmortem on 2.2.13 scale out difficulties
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2019 17:14:11 GMT
And once the cluster token map formation is done, it starts bootstrap and
we get a ton of these:

WARN  [MessagingService-Incoming-/2406:da14:95b:4503:910e:23fd:dafa:9983]
2019-06-12 15:22:04,760 IncomingTcpConnection.java:100 -
UnknownColumnFamilyException reading from socket; closing
org.apache.cassandra.db.UnknownColumnFamilyException: Couldn't find
cfId=df425400-c331-11e8-8b96-4b7f4d58af68

And then after LOTS of those

INFO  [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,515 StorageService.java:1142 - JOINING:
Starting to bootstrap...
INFO  [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,525 StreamResultFuture.java:87 - [Stream
#05af9ee0-8d26-11e9-85c1-bd5476090c54] Executing streaming plan for
Bootstrap
INFO  [main] 2019-06-12 15:23:25,526 StorageService.java:1199 - Bootstrap
completed! for the tokens [-7314981925085449175, ... bunch of tokens...
5499447097629838103]


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 12:07 PM Carl Mueller <carl.mueller@smartthings.com>
wrote:

> One node at a time: yes that is what we are doing
>
> We have not tried the streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms. It is currently 24
> hours. (```streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms=86400000```) which would cover
> the bootstrap timeframe we have seen before (1-2 hours per node)
>
> Since it joins with no data, it is serving erroneous data. We may try
> bootstrap rejoin and the JVM_OPT.... The node appears to think it has
> bootstrapped even though the gossipinfo shows the new node has a different
> schema version.
>
> We had scaled EU and US from 5 --> 25 without incident (one at a time),
> and since we increased ring_delay_ms worked haphazardly to get us four
> joins, and since then failure.
>
> The debug log shows:
>
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,559 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 at token 9200286188287490229
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,559 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983 at token 950856676715905899
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,563 MigrationManager.java:96 -
> Not pulling schema because versions match or shouldPullSchemaFrom returned
> false
> INFO  [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,563 TokenMetadata.java:464 -
> Updating topology for /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983
> INFO  [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,564 TokenMetadata.java:464 -
> Updating topology for /2a05:d018:af:1108:86f4:d628:6bca:6983
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,565 MigrationManager.java:96 -
> Not pulling schema because versions match or shouldPullSchemaFrom returned
> false
> INFO  [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,565 Gossiper.java:1027 - Node
> /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 is now part of the cluster
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,587 StorageService.java:1928 -
> Node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 state NORMAL, token
> [-1028768087263234868, ...<bunch of tokens>..., 921670352349030554]
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,588 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token
> -1028768087263234868
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,588 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token
> -1045740236536355596
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,589 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token
> -1184422937682103096
> DEBUG [GossipStage:1] 2019-06-12 15:20:08,589 StorageService.java:1998 -
> New node /2600:1f18:4b4:5903:64af:955e:b65:8d83 at token
> -1201924032068728250
>
> All the nodes appear to be reporting "Not pulling schema becuase versions
> match or shouldPullSchmeaFrom returned false. That code
> (MigrationManager.java) makes reference to a "gossip only" node, did we get
> stuck in that somehow.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM ZAIDI, ASAD A <az192g@att.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Adding one node at a time – is that successful?
>>
>> Check value of streaming_socket_timeout_in_ms parameter in cassandra.yaml
>> and increase if needed.
>>
>> Have you tried Nodetool bootstrap resume & jvm option i.e.
>> JVM_OPTS="$JVM_OPTS -Dcassandra.consistent.rangemovement=false"  ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Carl Mueller [mailto:carl.mueller@smartthings.com.INVALID]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2019 11:35 AM
>> *To:* user@cassandra.apache.org
>> *Subject:* Re: postmortem on 2.2.13 scale out difficulties
>>
>>
>>
>> We only were able to scale out four nodes and then failures started
>> occurring, including multiple instances of nodes joining a cluster without
>> streaming.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sigh.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:11 PM Carl Mueller <
>> carl.mueller@smartthings.com> wrote:
>>
>> We had a three-DC (asia-tokyo/europe/us) cassandra 2.2.13 cluster, AWS,
>> IPV6
>>
>> Needed to scale out the asia datacenter, which was 5 nodes, europe and us
>> were 25 nodes
>>
>> We were running into bootstrapping issues where the new node failed to
>> bootstrap/stream, it failed with
>>
>>
>>
>> "java.lang.RuntimeException: A node required to move the data
>> consistently is down"
>>
>>
>>
>> ...even though they were all up based on nodetool status prior to adding
>> the node.
>>
>> First we increased the phi_convict_threshold to 12, and that did not
>> help.
>>
>> CASSANDRA-12281 appeared similar to what we had problems with, but I
>> don't think we hit that. Somewhere in there someone wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> "For us, the workaround is either deleting the data (then bootstrap
>> again), or increasing the ring_delay_ms. And the larger the cluster is, the
>> longer ring_delay_ms is needed. Based on our tests, for a 40 nodes cluster,
>> it requires ring_delay_ms to be >50seconds. For a 70 nodes cluster,
>> >100seconds. Default is 30seconds."
>>
>> Given the WAN nature or our DCs, we used ring_delay_ms to 100 seconds and
>> it finally worked.
>>
>> side note:
>>
>> During the rolling restarts for setting phi_convict_threshold we observed
>> quite a lot of status map variance between nodes (we have a program to poll
>> all of a datacenter or cluster's view of the gossipinfo and statuses. AWS
>> appears to have variance in networking based on the phi_convict_threshold
>> advice, I'm not sure if our difficulties were typical in that regard and/or
>> if our IPV6 and/or globally distributed datacenters were exacerbating
>> factors.
>>
>> We could not reproduce this in loadtest, although loadtest is only eu and
>> us (but is IPV6)
>>
>>

Mime
View raw message