helix-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Zhen Zhang (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (HELIX-541) Possible "livelock" in Helix controller
Date Tue, 17 Mar 2015 21:48:40 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HELIX-541?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Zhen Zhang updated HELIX-541:
-----------------------------
    Affects Version/s: 0.6.4

> Possible "livelock" in Helix controller
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HELIX-541
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HELIX-541
>             Project: Apache Helix
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.6.4
>            Reporter: Zhen Zhang
>            Assignee: Zhen Zhang
>             Fix For: 0.6.5
>
>
> We discover a "livelock" bug in Helix controller. This leads to HELIX-540. Assuming we
have 3 partitions and 2 nodes, using LeaderStandby state model, FULL_AUTO mode, and replica
is 2. When reaching stable mapping, we might have the following:
> {noformat}
> partition_0:
>   node_0: LEADER
>   node_1: STANDBY
> partition_1:
>   node_1: LEADER
>   node_0: STANDBY
> partition_2:
>   node_0: LEADER
>   node_1: STANDBY
> {noformat}
> Later we add a new node (node_2) to the cluster and rebalancer decides that node_2 should
become LEADER for partition_2. So controller first sends OFFLINE->STANDBY transition to
node_2, and the mapping becomes:
> {noformat}
> partition_0:
>   node_0: LEADER
>   node_1: STANDBY
> partition_1:
>   node_1: LEADER
>   node_0: STANDBY
> partition_2:
>   node_0: LEADER
>   node_1: STANDBY
>   node_2: STANDBY
> {noformat}
> Note that given LEADER state count is 1 and STANDBY state count is R, where R=2, it is
implying the following state constraints:
> {noformat}
> LEADER: upper_bound=1
> STANDBY: upper_bound=2
> {noformat}
> Helix controller now enters the "livelock": it can't send STANDBY->LEADER to node_2,
since this will violate LEADER upper bound; it can't send LEADER->STANDBY to node_0 either,
since will violate STANDBY upper bound.
> We can solve the problem in several ways:
> 1) State count definition is ambiguous. For some state, like LEADER, when we say state_count=1,
that means we can't violate this constraint at any time. However, for some other state, like
STANDBY, when we say state_count=R, that means in stable mapping, there should be R-1 STANDBY
replicas, but we don't care the count in any transient state. In this case, we can set STANDBY
upper_bound to be larger than 2. Note that this doesn't solve the problem in general. We may
have some state model that has a restrict requirement on STANDBY state.
> 2) Using state transition priority. If we define LEADER->STANDBY transition should
have a higher priority than OFFLINE->STANDBY transition, it will solve the "livelock".
But this doesn't solve the problem in general either, because when the state model gets complicated,
it's hard to define and prove proper transition priorities that avoid "livelock" in any situation.
> 3) The root cause of the problem is that Helix controller uses a greedy algorithm that
only looks one step ahead. In the example, if Helix controller can look two steps further,
then it will find out that sending OFFLINE->STANDBY transition to node_2 will lead to a
dead end, therefore it should choose to send LEADER->STANDBY to node_0 instead. In general
we might need to do a DFS/BFS and it's hard if state model is complicated and system is large.
> In practice, most systems use simple state models with less than 5 states and have strict
state constraint on a single state (e.g MASTER, LEADER) only.  We can avoid "livelock" by
carefully choosing state constraints.



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

Mime
View raw message