hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enis Soztutar (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-14054) Acknowledged writes may get lost if regionserver clock is set backwards
Date Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:26:04 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14054?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14625706#comment-14625706
] 

Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-14054:
---------------------------------------

See HBASE-14070. 

> Acknowledged writes may get lost if regionserver clock is set backwards
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14054
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14054
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: regionserver
>    Affects Versions: 0.98.6
>         Environment: Linux
>            Reporter: Tobi Vollebregt
>
> We experience a small amount of lost acknowledged writes in production on July 1st (~700
identified so far).
> What happened was that we had NTP turned off since June 29th to prevent issues due to
the leap second on June 30th. NTP was turned back on July 1st.
> The next day, we noticed we were missing writes to a few of our higher throughput aggregation
tables.
> We found that this is caused by HBase taking the current time using System.currentTimeMillis,
which may be set backwards by NTP, and using this without any checks to populate the timestamp
of rows for which the client didn't supply a timestamp.
> Our application uses a read-modify-write pattern using get+checkAndPut to perform aggregation
as follows:
> 1. read version 1
> 2. mutate
> 3. write version 2
> 4. read version 2
> 5. mutate
> 6. write version 3
> The application retries the full read-modify-write if the checkAndPut fails.
> What must have happened on July 1st, after we started NTP back up, was this (timestamps
added):
> 1. read version 1 (timestamp 10)
> 2. mutate
> 3. write version 2 (HBase-assigned timestamp 11)
> 4. read version 2 (timestamp 11)
> 5. mutate
> 6. write version 3 (HBase-assigned timestamp 10)
> Hence, the last write was eclipsed by the first write, and hence, an acknowledged write
was lost.
> While this seems to match documented behavior (paraphrasing: "if timestamp is not specified
HBase will assign a timestamp using System.currentTimeMillis" "the row with the highest timestamp
will be returned by get"), I think it is very unintuitive and needs at least a big warning
in the documentation, along the lines of "Acknowledged writes may not be visible unless the
timestamp is explicitly specified and equal to or larger than the highest timestamp for that
row".
> I would also like to use this ticket to start a discussion on if we can make the behavior
better:
> Could HBase assign a timestamp of {{max(max timestamp for the row, System.currentTimeMillis())}}
in the checkAndPut write path, instead of blindly taking {{System.currentTimeMillis()}}, similar
to what has been done in HBASE-12449 for increment and append?
> Thoughts?



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

Mime
View raw message