hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ashu Pachauri (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HBASE-15001) Thread Safety issues in ReplicationSinkManager and HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint
Date Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:34:46 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15001?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel

Ashu Pachauri updated HBASE-15001:
    Attachment: HBASE-15001-V0.patch

V0: Makes operations in ReplicationSinkManager synchronized and adds a verification on total
number of replicated edits in HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint before reporting success.

> Thread Safety issues in ReplicationSinkManager and HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-15001
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-15001
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Replication
>    Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.2.1
>            Reporter: Ashu Pachauri
>            Assignee: Ashu Pachauri
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments: HBASE-15001-V0.patch
> ReplicationSinkManager is not thread-safe. This can cause problems in HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint,
 when the walprovider is multiwal. 
> For example: 
> 1. When multiple threads report bad sinks, the sink list can be non-empty but report
a negative size because the ArrayList itself is not thread-safe. 
> 2. HBaseInterClusterReplicationEndpoint depends on the number of sinks to batch edits
for shipping. However, it's quite possible that the following code makes it assume that there
are no batches to process (sink size is non-zero, but by the time we reach the "batching"
part, sink size becomes zero.)
> {code}
> if (replicationSinkMgr.getSinks().size() == 0) {
>     return false;
> }
> ...
> int n = Math.min(Math.min(this.maxThreads, entries.size()/100+1),
>                replicationSinkMgr.getSinks().size());
> {code}
> This is very dangerous, because, assuming no batches to process, we can safely report
that we replicated successfully, while we actually did not replicate anything. 
> The idea is to make all operations in ReplicationSinkManager thread-safe and do a verification
on the size of replicated edits before we report success.

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message