couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ensuring an update_seq is used at most once
Date Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:46:09 GMT
Yep, your analysis is dead-on, and is a more complete solution than what I propose.  Best,

Adam

On Apr 12, 2010, at 4:51 AM, Robert Newson wrote:

> Would it be safer to have a low- and high- watermark for the
> update_seq in memory? What I mean is that the db writer will never
> write out an update_seq that is N higher than the last committed one;
> if it is forced to do so, to permit a write, it then fsync's and
> resets high_seq to last_committed_seq. This way you can genuinely
> ensure that you don't reuse an update_seq. In practice we could allow
> a large delta, one that is larger than the number of fsyncs we expect
> to manage in the commit interval.
> 
> Your idea to just bump the update_seq "significantly" mostly pans out
> (I know a system that does precisely this) but it would be a data loss
> scenario if when it doesn't pan out.
> 
> B.
> 
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Adam Kocoloski
> <adam.kocoloski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Currently a DB update_seq can be reused if there's a power failure before the header
is sync'ed to disk.  This adds some extra complexity and overhead to the replicator, which
must confirm before saving a checkpoint that the source update_seq it is recording will not
be reused later.  It does this by issuing an ensure_full_commit call to the source DB, which
may be a pretty expensive operation if the source has a constant write load.
>> 
>> Should we try to fix that?  One way to do so would be start at a significantly higher
update_seq than the committed one whenever the DB is opened after an "unclean" shutdown; that
is, one where the DB header is not the last term stored in the file.  Although, I suppose
that's not an ironclad test for data loss -- it might be the case that none of the lost updates
were written to the file.  I suppose we could "bump" the update_seq on every startup.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message