Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 16:58:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Andrew Purtell (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <224766351.48876.1342198714583.JavaMail.jiratomcat@issues-vm>
In-Reply-To: <773047794.46443.1342153894679.JavaMail.jiratomcat@issues-vm>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-6390) append() and increment() may result
 in inconsistent result on retries.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6390?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13413870#comment-13413870 ] 

Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-6390:
---------------------------------------

So what you are looking for here is a way for a user to, perhaps optionally, make idempotent requests out of Append and Increment, correct?

Let me volunteer a couple of strawmen:

1) Could overload the timestamp of the Append and Increment requests. If the request is "out of date" relative to another request already applied, throw back a DoNotRetryException (or just a DNRE for that op if submitted as a MultiAction). This is roughly how ZooKeeper handles this class of distributed synchronization issue. Timestamp becomes a global sequence number. Not a logical sequence number so clocks must be closely synchronized. Each memstore would track the (server side) time of the most recent in-place update mutation. Could go further and keep a soft cache of in-place update times by row or even KV for use by append/increment/ICV. If more specific information gets evicted from the cache due to pressure then fallback to the per-memstore global timestamp would still insure correctness but potentially more resubmission work for the client/app.

2) A more generic option could be:

  * Extend the API where the user can set an optional cookie (a long). 

  * Keep a ring buffer of recent cookies up on the server.

  * Check the buffer first if a request with given cookie has already been applied and throw an exception back to the client if so.

Wouldn't guarantee correctness outside of some time bound. Also I worry about state management on the server. How large would that buffer need to be to capture all cookies submitted within ~(2 * time bound)?
                
> append() and increment() may result in inconsistent result on retries.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-6390
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-6390
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.94.0, 0.96.0
>            Reporter: Ashutosh Jindal
>
> append() and increment() api can give inconsistent result in following scenarios :
> 1- For eg, if the client does not receive the response in the specified time, it retries.  Now the first call to increment/append is already done and this retry will again make the operation to succeed.  
> 2- Now if the sync() to WAL fails we get an IOException, on getting an exception there is a retry done which again results in the doing the increment/append again.  
> When may need some sort of roll back for the second problem.
> For the first one we need to see how to handle this.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira