jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Consistency aka Isolation Level (was: OAK-638 Avoid branch/merge for small commits)
Date Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:57:00 GMT


On 5.3.13 9:27, Marcel Reutegger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it's better to discuss on the mailing list instead of an already
> closed issue...
>
> Michael wrote:
>> It should be possible to combine this with the "branch, rebase,
>> fast forward merge" approach I described above : we just need to
>> make the fast forward merge a bit more clever such that it could
>> detect and merge changes in distinct areas of the tree instead of
>> just giving up when there was concurrent change.
>
> Right, but then why do we branch and rebase in the first place, when
> we need the merge (and commit!) do the same (the more clever
> bit you mentioned) in a concurrent write scenario?
>
> The only reason I see right now is consistency we gain with the
> conflict handling Michael proposed [0] for the MicroKernel API
> and Jukka implemented in the SegmentMK with the NodeStore
> API.

My idea was to balance off things: rebase on branch is for handling the 
heavy duty stuff while the clever merge should only take care of very 
simple things like changes in separate sub trees. But see below.

>
> Jukkas implementation of the conflict handling provides
> Serializable Snapshot Isolation because it re-runs the hooks on
> a rebased branch whenever a concurrent change is detected
> before it merges. If we allow it to be more clever, we lose
> the Serializable part of the isolation level. Though, I think that's
> quite OK. See below.
>
> With the MicroKernel the story is a bit different. E.g. the conflict
> handling model allows the commit to internally rebase, but
> without re-running the commit hooks. validation and changes
> performed by the commit hook are already part of the JSOP.
> This means the MicroKernel will exhibit 'write skew' and not
> provide Serializable Snapshot Isolation. This was already described
> a while ago by Michael [1].

My take on this was: when we rebase internally anyway, why not make this 
rebase available externally so branches could rebase themselves and thus 
make it easier for the commit later on? AFAICS the internal rebase would 
either have to be on something which pretty much resembles a private 
branch (optimistic locking) or would need to be synchronised for 
serialising concurrent commits. The latter would result in a very fat 
lock and is not what we want. FYI the H2 based Microkernel tries to 
implement commit without such a fat lock and fails. See OAK-532.

Michael

>
> I think this is OK and we shouldn't require the MicroKernel nor
> the NodeStore to provide more strict consistency guarantees
> than Snapshot Isolation. I don't see how we can add the Serializable
> part without severely impacting throughput in a distributed write
> scenario.
>
> If we still need Serializable Snapshot Isolation for some of our
> Validators, we can use other techniques [2] to ensure consistency.
> Materializing the conflict is one option and sometimes just happens
> automatically. E.g. with a unique index on jcr:uuid we can ensure
> consistency (every referenceable node has a unique UUID) even
> with an implementation that only provides snapshot isolation.
>
> What I propose, is to make this explicit in the JavaDoc of the MicroKernel
> and the NodeStore API. Specifically the NodeStore API lacks quite some
> details. Maybe we can just reference the relevant parts in the MicroKernel.
>
> Regards
>   Marcel
>
> [0] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Conflict%20handling%20through%20rebasing%20branches
> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/jackrabbit/Transactional%20model%20of%20the%20Microkernel%20based%20Jackrabbit%20prototype
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snapshot_isolation#Serializable_Snapshot_Isolation
>

Mime
View raw message