distributedlog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sijie Guo <sij...@twitter.com.INVALID>
Subject Re: Proxy Client - Batch Ordering / Commit
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:14:02 GMT
Cameron,

Can you send me your wiki account name? I can grant you the permission to
edit it.

- Sijie

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Hatfield <kinguy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, would it be possible for me to get wiki access so I will be able to
> update it / etc?
>
> -Cameron
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Cameron Hatfield <kinguy@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "A couple of questions" is what I originally wrote, and then the
> following
> > happened. Sorry about the large swath of them, making sure my
> understanding
> > of the code base, as well as the DL/Bookkeeper/ZK ecosystem interaction,
> > makes sense.
> >
> > ==General:
> > What is an exclusive session? What is it providing over a regular
> session?
> >
> >
> > ==Proxy side:
> > Should a new streamop be added for the fencing operation, or does it make
> > sense to piggyback on an existing one (such as write)?
> >
> > ====getLastDLSN:
> > What should be the return result for:
> > A new stream
> > A new session, after successful fencing
> > A new session, after a change in ownership / first starting up
> >
> > What is the main use case for getLastDLSN(<stream>, false)? Is this to
> > guarantee that the recovery process has happened in case of ownership
> > failure (I don't have a good understanding of what causes the recovery
> > process to happen, especially from the reader side)? Or is it to handle
> the
> > lost-ack problem? Since all the rest of the read related things go
> through
> > the read client, I'm not sure if I see the use case, but it seems like
> > there would be a large potential for confusion on which to use. What
> about
> > just a fenceSession op, that always fences, returning the DLSN of the
> > fence, and leave the normal getLastDLSN for the regular read client.
> >
> > ====Fencing:
> > When a fence session occurs, what call needs to be made to make sure any
> > outstanding writes are flushed and committed (so that we guarantee the
> > client will be able to read anything that was in the write queue)?
> > Is there a guaranteed ordering for things written in the future queue for
> > AsyncLogWriter (I'm not quite confident that I was able to accurately
> > follow the logic, as their are many parts of the code that write, have
> > queues, heartbeat, etc)?
> >
> > ====SessionID:
> > What is the default sessionid / transactionid for a new stream? I assume
> > this would just be the first control record
> >
> > ======Should all streams have a sessionid by default, regardless if it is
> > never used by a client (aka, everytime ownership changes, a new control
> > record is generated, and a sessionid is stored)?
> > Main edge case that would have to be handled is if a client writes with
> an
> > old sessionid, but the owner has changed and has yet to create a
> sessionid.
> > This should be handled by the "non-matching sessionid" rule, since the
> > invalid sessionid wouldn't match the passed sessionid, which should cause
> > the client to get a new sessionid.
> >
> > ======Where in the code does it make sense to own the session, the stream
> > interfaces / classes? Should they pass that information down to the ops,
> or
> > do the sessionid check within?
> > My first thought would be Stream owns the sessionid, passes it into the
> > ops (as either a nullable value, or an invalid default value), which then
> > do the sessionid check if they care. The main issue is updating the
> > sessionid is a bit backwards, as either every op has the ability to
> update
> > it through some type of return value / direct stream access / etc, or
> there
> > is a special case in the stream for the fence operation / any other
> > operation that can update the session.
> >
> > ======For "the owner of the log stream will first advance the transaction
> > id generator to claim a new transaction id and write a control record to
> > the log stream. ":
> > Should "DistributedLogConstants.CONTROL_RECORD_CONTENT" be the type of
> > control record written?
> > Should the "writeControlRecord" on the BKAsyncLogWriter be exposed in the
> > AsyncLogWriter interface be exposed?  Or even in the one within the
> segment
> > writer? Or should the code be duplicated / pulled out into a helper /
> etc?
> > (Not a big Java person, so any suggestions on the "Java Way", or at least
> > the DL way, to do it would be appreciated)
> >
> > ======Transaction ID:
> > The BKLogSegmentWriter ignores the transaction ids from control records
> > when it records the "LastTXId." Would that be an issue here for anything?
> > It looks like it may do that because it assumes you're calling it's local
> > function for writing a controlrecord, which uses the lastTxId.
> >
> >
> > ==Thrift Interface:
> > ====Should the write response be split out for different calls?
> > It seems odd to have a single struct with many optional items that are
> > filled depending on the call made for every rpc call. This is mostly a
> > curiosity question, since I assume it comes from the general practices
> from
> > using thrift for a while. Would it at least make sense for the
> > getLastDLSN/fence endpoint to have a new struct?
> >
> > ====Any particular error code that makes sense for session fenced? If we
> > want to be close to the HTTP errors, looks like 412 (PRECONDITION FAILED)
> > might make the most sense, if a bit generic.
> >
> > 412 def:
> > "The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields
> > evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This response code
> > allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource
> > metainformation (header field data) and thus prevent the requested method
> > from being applied to a resource other than the one intended."
> >
> > 412 excerpt from the If-match doc:
> > "This behavior is most useful when the client wants to prevent an
> updating
> > method, such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since the
> > client last retrieved it."
> >
> > ====Should we return the sessionid to the client in the "fencesession"
> > calls?
> > Seems like it may be useful when you fence, especially if you have some
> > type of custom sequencer where it would make sense for search, or for
> > debugging.
> > Main minus is that it would be easy for users to create an implicit
> > requirement that the sessionid is forever a valid transactionid, which
> may
> > not always be the case long term for the project.
> >
> >
> > ==Client:
> > ====What is the proposed process for the client retrieving the new
> > sessionid?
> > A full reconnect? No special case code, but intrusive on the client side,
> > and possibly expensive garbage/processing wise. (though this type of
> > failure should hopefully be rare enough to not be a problem)
> > A call to reset the sessionid? Less intrusive, all the issues you get
> with
> > mutable object methods that need to be called in a certain order, edge
> > cases such as outstanding/buffered requests to the old stream, etc.
> > The call could also return the new sessionid, making it a good call for
> > storing or debugging the value.
> >
> > ====Session Fenced failure:
> > Will this put the client into a failure state, stopping all future writes
> > until fixed?
> > Is it even possible to get this error when ownership changes? The
> > connection to the new owner should get a new sessionid on connect, so I
> > would expect not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Cameron
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu.ant@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you, Cameron. Look forward to your comments.
> >>
> >> - Xi
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Cameron Hatfield <kinguy@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sorry, I've been on vacation for the past week, and heads down for a
> >> > release that is using DL at the end of Nov. I'll take a look at this
> >> over
> >> > the next week, and add any relevant comments. After we are finished
> with
> >> > dev for this release, I am hoping to tackle this next.
> >> >
> >> > -Cameron
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Xi,
> >> > >
> >> > > Thank you so much for your proposal. I took a look. It looks fine to
> >> me.
> >> > > Cameron, do you have any comments?
> >> > >
> >> > > Look forward to your pull requests.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Sijie
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu.ant@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Cameron,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Have you started any work for this? I just updated the proposal
> >> page -
> >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/DP-2+-+
> >> > > Epoch+Write+Support
> >> > > > Maybe we can work together with this.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Sijie, Leigh,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > can you guys help review this to make sure our proposal is in the
> >> right
> >> > > > direction?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - Xi
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-63 for
> >> tracking
> >> > the
> >> > > > > proposed idea here.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sijie Guo
> >> > <sijieg@twitter.com.invalid
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Cameron Hatfield <
> >> > kinguy@gmail.com
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Yes, we are reading the HBase WAL (from their replication
> >> plugin
> >> > > > > > support),
> >> > > > > > > and writing that into DL.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Gotcha.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > From the sounds of it, yes, it would. Only thing I would say
> >> is
> >> > > make
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > epoch requirement optional, so that if I client doesn't care
> >> > about
> >> > > > > dupes
> >> > > > > > > they don't have to deal with the process of getting a new
> >> epoch.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Yup. This should be optional. I can start a wiki page on how
> we
> >> > want
> >> > > to
> >> > > > > > implement this. Are you interested in contributing to this?
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Cameron
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Sijie Guo
> >> > > > <sijieg@twitter.com.invalid
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Sijie Guo <
> >> sijieg@twitter.com
> >> > >
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016, Cameron Hatfield <
> >> > > kinguy@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> Answer inline:
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Sijie Guo <
> >> > sijie@apache.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Cameron,
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Thank you for your summary. I liked the discussion
> >> here. I
> >> > > > also
> >> > > > > > > liked
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > summary of your requirement - 'single-writer-per-key,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > multiple-writers-per-log'. If I understand correctly,
> >> the
> >> > > core
> >> > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > > > >> here
> >> > > > > > > > >> > is almost 'exact-once' write (or a way to explicit
> tell
> >> > if a
> >> > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > retried or not).
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Comments inline.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Cameron Hatfield <
> >> > > > > > > kinguy@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ah- yes good point (to be clear we're not using
> the
> >> > > proxy
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > way
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > today).
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Due to the source of the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot guarantee
> >> that a
> >> > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > >> partition
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > will
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be owned for writes by the same client.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Do you mean you *need* to support multiple
> writers
> >> > > issuing
> >> > > > > > > > >> interleaved
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > writes or is it just that they might sometimes
> >> > > interleave
> >> > > > > > writes
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > >> > you
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >don't care?
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > How HBase partitions the keys being written
> wouldn't
> >> > have
> >> > > a
> >> > > > > > > one->one
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > mapping with the partitions we would have in HBase.
> >> Even
> >> > > if
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > did
> >> > > > > > > > >> have
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > that alignment when the cluster first started,
> HBase
> >> > will
> >> > > > > > > rebalance
> >> > > > > > > > >> what
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > servers own what partitions, as well as split and
> >> merge
> >> > > > > > partitions
> >> > > > > > > > >> that
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > already exist, causing eventual drift from one log
> >> per
> >> > > > > > partition.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Because we want ordering guarantees per key (row in
> >> > > hbase),
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > >> partition
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > the logs by the key. Since multiple writers are
> >> possible
> >> > > per
> >> > > > > > range
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > >> > keys
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > (due to the aforementioned rebalancing / splitting
> /
> >> etc
> >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > hbase),
> >> > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > cannot use the core library due to requiring a
> single
> >> > > writer
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > >> > ordering.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > But, for a single log, we don't really care about
> >> > ordering
> >> > > > > aside
> >> > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > >> at
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > the per-key level. So all we really need to be able
> >> to
> >> > > > handle
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> > preventing
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > duplicates when a failure occurs, and ordering
> >> > consistency
> >> > > > > > across
> >> > > > > > > > >> > requests
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > from a single client.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > So our general requirements are:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Write A, Write B
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Timeline: A -> B
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Request B is only made after A has successfully
> >> returned
> >> > > > > > (possibly
> >> > > > > > > > >> after
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > retries)
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > 1) If the write succeeds, it will be durably
> exposed
> >> to
> >> > > > > clients
> >> > > > > > > > within
> >> > > > > > > > >> > some
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > bounded time frame
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Guaranteed.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > 2) If A succeeds and B succeeds, the ordering for
> the
> >> > log
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > A
> >> > > > > > > > >> and
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > then B
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > If I understand correctly here, B is only sent after
> A
> >> is
> >> > > > > > returned,
> >> > > > > > > > >> right?
> >> > > > > > > > >> > If that's the case, It is guaranteed.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > 3) If A fails due to an error that can be relied on
> >> to
> >> > > *not*
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > lost
> >> > > > > > > > >> > ack
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > problem, it will never be exposed to the client, so
> >> it
> >> > may
> >> > > > > > > > (depending
> >> > > > > > > > >> on
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > the error) be retried immediately
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > If it is not a lost-ack problem, the entry will be
> >> > exposed.
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> > guaranteed.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Let me try rephrasing the questions, to make sure I'm
> >> > > > > understanding
> >> > > > > > > > >> correctly:
> >> > > > > > > > >> If A fails, with an error such as "Unable to create
> >> > connection
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > >> bookkeeper server", that would be the type of error we
> >> would
> >> > > > > expect
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> able to retry immediately, as that result means no
> action
> >> > was
> >> > > > > taken
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > >> log / etc, so no entry could have been created. This is
> >> > > > different
> >> > > > > > > then a
> >> > > > > > > > >> "Connection Timeout" exception, as we just might not
> have
> >> > > > gotten a
> >> > > > > > > > >> response
> >> > > > > > > > >> in time.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > Gotcha.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > The response code returned from proxy can tell if a
> >> failure
> >> > can
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > retried
> >> > > > > > > > > safely or not. (We might need to make them well
> >> documented)
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > 4) If A fails due to an error that could be a lost
> >> ack
> >> > > > problem
> >> > > > > > > > >> (network
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > connectivity / etc), within a bounded time frame it
> >> > should
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> possible to
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > find out if the write succeed or failed. Either by
> >> > reading
> >> > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > checkpoint of the log for the changes that should
> >> have
> >> > > been
> >> > > > > made
> >> > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > >> some
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > other possible server-side support.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > If I understand this correctly, it is a duplication
> >> issue,
> >> > > > > right?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Can a de-duplication solution work here? Either DL or
> >> your
> >> > > > > client
> >> > > > > > > does
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > de-duplication?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> The requirements I'm mentioning are the ones needed for
> >> > > > > client-side
> >> > > > > > > > >> dedupping. Since if I can guarantee writes being
> exposed
> >> > > within
> >> > > > > some
> >> > > > > > > > time
> >> > > > > > > > >> frame, and I can never get into an inconsistently
> ordered
> >> > > state
> >> > > > > when
> >> > > > > > > > >> successes happen, when an error occurs, I can always
> wait
> >> > for
> >> > > > max
> >> > > > > > time
> >> > > > > > > > >> frame, read the latest writes, and then dedup locally
> >> > against
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > > > >> just made.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> The main thing about that timeframe is that its
> basically
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > addition
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > >> every timeout, all the way down in the system, combined
> >> with
> >> > > > > > whatever
> >> > > > > > > > >> flushing / caching / etc times are at the bookkeeper /
> >> > client
> >> > > > > level
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > >> when values are exposed
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Gotcha.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Is there any ways to identify your write?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > I can think of a case as follow - I want to know what
> >> is
> >> > > your
> >> > > > > > > expected
> >> > > > > > > > >> > behavior from the log.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > a)
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > If a hbase region server A writes a change of key K
> to
> >> the
> >> > > > log,
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> change
> >> > > > > > > > >> > is successfully made to the log;
> >> > > > > > > > >> > but server A is down before receiving the change.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > region server B took over the region that contains K,
> >> what
> >> > > > will
> >> > > > > B
> >> > > > > > > do?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> HBase writes in large chunks (WAL Logs), which its
> >> > replication
> >> > > > > > system
> >> > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > >> handles by replaying in the case of failure. If I'm in
> a
> >> > > middle
> >> > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > log,
> >> > > > > > > > >> and the whole region goes down and gets rescheduled
> >> > > elsewhere, I
> >> > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > >> start
> >> > > > > > > > >> back up from the beginning of the log I was in the
> middle
> >> > of.
> >> > > > > Using
> >> > > > > > > > >> checkpointing + deduping, we should be able to find out
> >> > where
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > > left
> >> > > > > > > > off
> >> > > > > > > > >> in the log.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > b) same as a). but server A was just network
> >> partitioned.
> >> > > will
> >> > > > > > both
> >> > > > > > > A
> >> > > > > > > > >> and B
> >> > > > > > > > >> > write the change of key K?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> HBase gives us some guarantees around network
> partitions
> >> > > > > > (Consistency
> >> > > > > > > > over
> >> > > > > > > > >> availability for HBase). HBase is a single-master
> >> failover
> >> > > > > recovery
> >> > > > > > > type
> >> > > > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > > > >> system, with zookeeper-based guarantees for single
> owners
> >> > > > > (writers)
> >> > > > > > > of a
> >> > > > > > > > >> range of data.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > 5) If A is turned into multiple batches (one large
> >> > request
> >> > > > > gets
> >> > > > > > > > split
> >> > > > > > > > >> > into
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > multiple smaller ones to the bookkeeper backend,
> due
> >> to
> >> > > log
> >> > > > > > > rolling
> >> > > > > > > > /
> >> > > > > > > > >> > size
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > / etc):
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >   a) The ordering of entries within batches have
> >> > ordering
> >> > > > > > > > consistence
> >> > > > > > > > >> > with
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > the original request, when exposed in the log
> (though
> >> > they
> >> > > > may
> >> > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > interleaved with other requests)
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >   b) The ordering across batches have ordering
> >> > consistence
> >> > > > > with
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > original request, when exposed in the log (though
> >> they
> >> > may
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> interleaved
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > with other requests)
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >   c) If a batch fails, and cannot be retried / is
> >> > > > > unsuccessfully
> >> > > > > > > > >> retried,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > all batches after the failed batch should not be
> >> exposed
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > log.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Note:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > The batches before and including the failed batch,
> >> that
> >> > > > ended
> >> > > > > up
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > succeeding, can show up in the log, again within
> some
> >> > > > bounded
> >> > > > > > time
> >> > > > > > > > >> range
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > for reads by a client.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > There is a method 'writeBulk' in DistributedLogClient
> >> can
> >> > > > > achieve
> >> > > > > > > this
> >> > > > > > > > >> > guarantee.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > However, I am not very sure about how will you turn A
> >> into
> >> > > > > > batches.
> >> > > > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > >> you
> >> > > > > > > > >> > are dividing A into batches,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > you can simply control the application write sequence
> >> to
> >> > > > achieve
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > guarantee here.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Can you explain more about this?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> In this case, by batches I mean what the proxy does
> with
> >> the
> >> > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > >> request
> >> > > > > > > > >> that I send it. If the proxy decides it needs to turn
> my
> >> > > single
> >> > > > > > > request
> >> > > > > > > > >> into multiple batches of requests, due to log rolling,
> >> size
> >> > > > > > > limitations,
> >> > > > > > > > >> etc, those would be the guarantees I need to be able to
> >> > > > > reduplicate
> >> > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> client side.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > A single record written by #write and A record set (set
> of
> >> > > > records)
> >> > > > > > > > > written by #writeRecordSet are atomic - they will not be
> >> > broken
> >> > > > > down
> >> > > > > > > into
> >> > > > > > > > > entries (batches). With the correct response code, you
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > > > > able
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > tell if it is a lost-ack failure or not. However there
> is
> >> a
> >> > > size
> >> > > > > > > > limitation
> >> > > > > > > > > for this - it can't not go beyond 1MB for current
> >> > > implementation.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > What is your expected record size?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Since we can guarantee per-key ordering on the
> client
> >> > > side,
> >> > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > >> guarantee
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > that there is a single writer per-key, just not per
> >> log.
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Do you need fencing guarantee in the case of network
> >> > > partition
> >> > > > > > > causing
> >> > > > > > > > >> > two-writers?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > So if there was a
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > way to guarantee a single write request as being
> >> written
> >> > > or
> >> > > > > not,
> >> > > > > > > > >> within a
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > certain time frame (since failures should be rare
> >> > anyways,
> >> > > > > this
> >> > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> fine
> >> > > > > > > > >> > if
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > it is expensive), we can then have the client
> >> guarantee
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > ordering
> >> > > > > > > > >> it
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > needs.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > This sounds an 'exact-once' write (regarding retries)
> >> > > > > requirement
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > me,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > right?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> Yes. I'm curious of how this issue is handled by
> >> Manhattan,
> >> > > > since
> >> > > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > >> imagine a data store that ends up getting multiple
> writes
> >> > for
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > same
> >> > > > > > > > put
> >> > > > > > > > >> / get / etc, would be harder to use, and we are
> basically
> >> > > trying
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > create
> >> > > > > > > > >> a log like that for HBase.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > Are you guys replacing HBase WAL?
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > In Manhattan case, the request will be first written to
> DL
> >> > > > streams
> >> > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > Manhattan coordinator. The Manhattan replica then will
> >> read
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > DL
> >> > > > > > > > > streams and apply the change. In the lost-ack case, the
> MH
> >> > > > > > coordinator
> >> > > > > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > > just fail the request to client.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > My feeling here is your usage for HBase is a bit
> different
> >> > from
> >> > > > how
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > > DL in Manhattan. It sounds like you read from a source
> >> (HBase
> >> > > > WAL)
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > write to DL. But I might be wrong.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't really
> >> > thought
> >> > > > > > > through -
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch
> >> write
> >> > > > > request,
> >> > > > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the writer
> >> has
> >> > > > > changed
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > ledger
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch and
> >> are
> >> > > > > rejected
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > epoch
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > has changed.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger
> off
> >> > > after a
> >> > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > >> > would
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been written
> >> or
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> rejected.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > The issue would be how I guarantee the write I
> wrote
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > server
> >> > > > > > > > was
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > written. Since a network issue could happen on the
> >> send
> >> > of
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> request,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > or
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > on the receive of the success response, an epoch
> >> > wouldn't
> >> > > > tell
> >> > > > > > me
> >> > > > > > > > if I
> >> > > > > > > > >> > can
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > successfully retry, as it could be successfully
> >> written
> >> > > but
> >> > > > > AWS
> >> > > > > > > > >> dropped
> >> > > > > > > > >> > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > connection for the success response. Since the
> epoch
> >> > would
> >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > same
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > (same ledger), I could write duplicates.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We are currently proposing adding a transaction
> >> > semantic
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > dl
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > >> get
> >> > > > > > > > >> > rid
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > of the size limitation and the unaware-ness in
> the
> >> > proxy
> >> > > > > > client.
> >> > > > > > > > >> Here
> >> > > > > > > > >> > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > our idea -
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.or
> >> g/mod_mbox/incubator-
> >> > > > > > > distributedlog
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > -dev/201609.mbox/%3cCAAC6BxP5Y
> >> yEHwG0ZCF5soh42X=xuYwYm
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > <http://mail-archives.apache.
> org/mod_mbox/incubator-
> >> > > > > > > > >> > distributedlog%0A-dev/201609.mbox/%
> >> > > 3cCAAC6BxP5YyEHwG0ZCF5soh
> >> > > > > > > > 42X=xuYwYm>
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > L4nXsYBYiofzxpVk6g@mail.gmail.com%3e
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I am not sure if your idea is similar as ours.
> but
> >> > we'd
> >> > > > like
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > collaborate
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > with the community if anyone has the similar
> idea.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Our use case would be covered by transaction
> support,
> >> > but
> >> > > > I'm
> >> > > > > > > unsure
> >> > > > > > > > >> if
> >> > > > > > > > >> > we
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > would need something that heavy weight for the
> >> > guarantees
> >> > > we
> >> > > > > > need.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Basically, the high level requirement here is
> >> "Support
> >> > > > > > consistent
> >> > > > > > > > >> write
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > ordering for single-writer-per-key,
> >> > multi-writer-per-log".
> >> > > > My
> >> > > > > > > hunch
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > that, with some added guarantees to the proxy (if
> it
> >> > isn't
> >> > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > supported), and some custom client code on our side
> >> for
> >> > > > > removing
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > entries that actually succeed to write to
> >> DistributedLog
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> request
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > that failed, it should be a relatively easy thing
> to
> >> > > > support.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Yup. I think it should not be very difficult to
> >> support.
> >> > > There
> >> > > > > > might
> >> > > > > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > some changes in the server side.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Let's figure out what will the changes be. Are you
> guys
> >> > > > > interested
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > >> > contributing?
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > Yes, we would be.
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> As a note, the one thing that we see as an issue with
> the
> >> > > client
> >> > > > > > side
> >> > > > > > > > >> dedupping is how to bound the range of data that needs
> >> to be
> >> > > > > looked
> >> > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > >> deduplication. As you can imagine, it is pretty easy to
> >> > bound
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > bottom
> >> > > > > > > > >> of
> >> > > > > > > > >> the range, as that it just regular checkpointing of the
> >> DSLN
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > >> returned. I'm still not sure if there is any nice way
> to
> >> > time
> >> > > > > bound
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> top
> >> > > > > > > > >> end of the range, especially since the proxy owns
> >> sequence
> >> > > > numbers
> >> > > > > > > > (which
> >> > > > > > > > >> makes sense). I am curious if there is more that can be
> >> done
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > > > > >> deduplication is on the server side. However the main
> >> minus
> >> > I
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > >> server
> >> > > > > > > > >> side deduplication is that instead of running
> contingent
> >> on
> >> > > > there
> >> > > > > > > being
> >> > > > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > > >> failed client request, instead it would have to run
> every
> >> > > time a
> >> > > > > > write
> >> > > > > > > > >> happens.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > For a reliable dedup, we probably need
> >> fence-then-getLastDLSN
> >> > > > > > > operation -
> >> > > > > > > > > so it would guarantee that any non-completed requests
> >> issued
> >> > > > > > (lost-ack
> >> > > > > > > > > requests) before this fence-then-getLastDLSN operation
> >> will
> >> > be
> >> > > > > failed
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > they will never land at the log.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > the pseudo code would look like below -
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > write(request) onFailure { t =>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > if (t is timeout exception) {
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > DLSN lastDLSN = fenceThenGetLastDLSN()
> >> > > > > > > > > DLSN lastCheckpointedDLSN = ...;
> >> > > > > > > > > // find if the request lands between [lastDLSN,
> >> > > > > > lastCheckpointedDLSN].
> >> > > > > > > > > // if it exists, the write succeed; otherwise retry.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > }
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Just realized the idea is same as what Leigh raised in the
> >> > > previous
> >> > > > > > email
> >> > > > > > > > about 'epoch write'. Let me explain more about this idea
> >> > (Leigh,
> >> > > > feel
> >> > > > > > > free
> >> > > > > > > > to jump in to fill up your idea).
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > - when a log stream is owned,  the proxy use the last
> >> > transaction
> >> > > > id
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > epoch
> >> > > > > > > > - when a client connects (handshake with the proxy), it
> will
> >> > get
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > epoch
> >> > > > > > > > for the stream.
> >> > > > > > > > - the writes issued by this client will carry the epoch to
> >> the
> >> > > > proxy.
> >> > > > > > > > - add a new rpc - fenceThenGetLastDLSN - it would force
> the
> >> > proxy
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > bump
> >> > > > > > > > the epoch.
> >> > > > > > > > - if fenceThenGetLastDLSN happened, all the outstanding
> >> writes
> >> > > with
> >> > > > > old
> >> > > > > > > > epoch will be rejected with exceptions (e.g. EpochFenced).
> >> > > > > > > > - The DLSN returned from fenceThenGetLastDLSN can be used
> as
> >> > the
> >> > > > > bound
> >> > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > deduplications on failures.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Cameron, does this sound a solution to your use case?
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> Maybe something that could fit a similar need that
> Kafka
> >> > does
> >> > > > (the
> >> > > > > > > last
> >> > > > > > > > >> store value for a particular key in a log), such that
> on
> >> a
> >> > per
> >> > > > key
> >> > > > > > > basis
> >> > > > > > > > >> there could be a sequence number that support
> >> deduplication?
> >> > > > Cost
> >> > > > > > > seems
> >> > > > > > > > >> like it would be high however, and I'm not even sure if
> >> > > > bookkeeper
> >> > > > > > > > >> supports
> >> > > > > > > > >> it.
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> Cheers,
> >> > > > > > > > >> Cameron
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > Cameron
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Leigh Stewart
> >> > > > > > > > >> > <lstewart@twitter.com.invalid
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't really
> >> > thought
> >> > > > > > > through -
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch
> >> write
> >> > > > > request,
> >> > > > > > > > where
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the writer
> >> has
> >> > > > > changed
> >> > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > ledger
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch and
> >> are
> >> > > > > rejected
> >> > > > > > if
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > epoch
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > has changed.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger
> off
> >> > > after a
> >> > > > > > > failure
> >> > > > > > > > >> > would
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been written
> >> or
> >> > > would
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> rejected.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Sijie Guo <
> >> > > > sijie@apache.org
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Cameron,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I think both Leigh and Xi had made a few good
> >> points
> >> > > > about
> >> > > > > > > your
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > question.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > To add one more point to your question - "but I
> >> am
> >> > not
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code
> handle
> >> > > > > failures.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If not, where in the code would be the relevant
> >> > places
> >> > > > to
> >> > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > ability
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to do this, and would the project be interested
> >> in a
> >> > > > pull
> >> > > > > > > > >> request?"
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The current proxy and client logic doesn't do
> >> > > perfectly
> >> > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > >> handling
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > failures (duplicates) - the strategy now is the
> >> > client
> >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > retry
> >> > > > > > > > >> as
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > best
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at it can before throwing exceptions to users.
> >> The
> >> > > code
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > >> > looking
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > - it is on BKLogSegmentWriter for the proxy
> >> handling
> >> > > > > writes
> >> > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > >> it is
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > on
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > DistributedLogClientImpl for the proxy client
> >> > handling
> >> > > > > > > responses
> >> > > > > > > > >> from
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > proxies. Does this help you?
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > And also, you are welcome to contribute the
> pull
> >> > > > requests.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > - Sijie
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Cameron
> Hatfield
> >> <
> >> > > > > > > > >> kinguy@gmail.com>
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have a question about the Proxy Client.
> >> > Basically,
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > our
> >> > > > > > > > use
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > cases,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > want to guarantee ordering at the key level,
> >> > > > > irrespective
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ordering
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of the partition it may be assigned to as a
> >> whole.
> >> > > Due
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > source
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > of
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot guarantee
> >> > that a
> >> > > > > > single
> >> > > > > > > > >> > partition
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > will
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be owned for writes by the same client. This
> >> means
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > proxy
> >> > > > > > > > >> client
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > works
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > well (since we don't care which proxy owns
> the
> >> > > > partition
> >> > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > writing
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to).
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > However, the guarantees we need when writing
> a
> >> > batch
> >> > > > > > > consists
> >> > > > > > > > >> of:
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Definition of a Batch: The set of records
> sent
> >> to
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > writeBatch
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > endpoint
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > on the proxy
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Batch success: If the client receives a
> >> success
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> proxy,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > then
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that batch is successfully written
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Inter-Batch ordering : Once a batch has
> been
> >> > > > written
> >> > > > > > > > >> > successfully
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > by
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > client, when another batch is written, it
> will
> >> be
> >> > > > > > guaranteed
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > >> be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ordered
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > after the last batch (if it is the same
> >> stream).
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. Intra-Batch ordering: Within a batch of
> >> writes,
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > records
> >> > > > > > > > >> will
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > committed in order
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. Intra-Batch failure ordering: If an
> >> individual
> >> > > > record
> >> > > > > > > fails
> >> > > > > > > > >> to
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > write
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > within a batch, all records after that record
> >> will
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> written.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5. Batch Commit: Guarantee that if a batch
> >> > returns a
> >> > > > > > > success,
> >> > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > >> > will
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > be
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > written
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 6. Read-after-write: Once a batch is
> committed,
> >> > > > within a
> >> > > > > > > > limited
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > time-frame
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it will be able to be read. This is required
> in
> >> > the
> >> > > > case
> >> > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > >> > failure,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > so
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that the client can see what actually got
> >> > > committed. I
> >> > > > > > > believe
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > time-frame part could be removed if the
> client
> >> can
> >> > > > send
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> same
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sequence number that was written previously,
> >> since
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > would
> >> > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > >> > fail
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we would know that a read needs to occur.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > So, my basic question is if this is currently
> >> > > possible
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > proxy?
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > I
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > don't believe it gives these guarantees as it
> >> > stands
> >> > > > > > today,
> >> > > > > > > > but
> >> > > > > > > > >> I
> >> > > > > > > > >> > am
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code
> >> handle
> >> > > > > > failures.
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > If not, where in the code would be the
> relevant
> >> > > places
> >> > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > add
> >> > > > > > > > >> the
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ability
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to do this, and would the project be
> interested
> >> > in a
> >> > > > > pull
> >> > > > > > > > >> request?
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Cameron
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> > >
> >> > > > > > > > >> >
> >> > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message