Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Hi Jeff, Thanks for the prompt action! I agree that patching an application MAY have a shorter life cycle than patching Cassandra in production. But, in the interest of the larger Cassandra user community, we should put our best effort to avoid breaking all the affected applications in production. We should also consider that updating business logic as per the new 15 year TTL constraint may have business implications for many users. I have a limited understanding about the complexity of the code patch, but it may be more feasible to extend the 20 year limit in Cassandra in 2.1/2.2 rather than asking all impacted users to do an immediate business logic adaptation. Moreover, now that we officially support Cassandra 2.1 & 2.2 until 4.0 release and provide critical fixes for 2.1, it becomes even more reasonable to provide this extremely critical patch for 2.1 & 2.2 (unless its absolutely impossible). Still, many users use Cassandra 2.1 and 2.2 in their most critical production systems. Thanks Anuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 11:06:30 AM IST, Jeff Jirsa wrote: We’ll get patches out. They almost certainly aren’t going to change the sstable format for old versions (unless whoever writes the patch makes a great argument for it), so there’s probably not going to be post-2038 ttl support for 2.1/2.2. For those old versions, we can definitely make it not lose data, but we almost certainly aren’t going to make the ttl go past 2038 in old versions. More importantly, any company trying to do 20 year ttl’s that’s waiting for a patched version should start by patching their app to not write invalid ttls - your app release cycle is almost certainly faster than db patch / review / test / release / validation, and you can avoid the data loss application side by calculating the ttl explicitly. It’s not the best solution, but it beats doing nothing, and we’re not rushing out a release in less than a day (we haven’t even started a vote, and voting window is 72 hours for members to review and approve or reject the candidate). -- Jeff Jirsa > On Jan 25, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > Patches welcome. > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> Hi Paulo, >> >> Thanks for looking into the issue on priority. I have serious concerns >> regarding reducing the TTL to 15 yrs.The patch will immediately break all >> existing applications in Production which are using 15+ yrs TTL. And then >> they would be stuck again until all the logic in Production software is >> modified and the software is upgraded immediately. This may take days. Such >> heavy downtime is generally not acceptable for any business. Yes, they will >> not have silent data loss but they would not be able to do any business >> either. I think the permanent fix must be prioritized and put on extremely >> fast track. This is a certain Blocker and the impact could be enormous--with >> and without the 15 year short-term patch. >> >> And believe me --there are plenty such business use cases where you use very >> long TTLs such as 20 yrs for compliance and other reasons. >> >> Thanks >> Anuj >> >> On Friday 26 January 2018, 4:57:13 AM IST, Michael Kjellman >> wrote: >> >> why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the >> actual use case for that. >> >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: >>> >>> The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. >>> >>> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The >>> serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine >>> already. >>> >>> If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as >>> they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. >>> >>> regards, >>> Christian >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on 3.0+ I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we figure a long term solution. 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : > If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you get an assertion error that fails the query. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremiah, >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and data is lost: >> create table test(name text
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
We’ll get patches out. They almost certainly aren’t going to change the sstable format for old versions (unless whoever writes the patch makes a great argument for it), so there’s probably not going to be post-2038 ttl support for 2.1/2.2. For those old versions, we can definitely make it not lose data, but we almost certainly aren’t going to make the ttl go past 2038 in old versions. More importantly, any company trying to do 20 year ttl’s that’s waiting for a patched version should start by patching their app to not write invalid ttls - your app release cycle is almost certainly faster than db patch / review / test / release / validation, and you can avoid the data loss application side by calculating the ttl explicitly. It’s not the best solution, but it beats doing nothing, and we’re not rushing out a release in less than a day (we haven’t even started a vote, and voting window is 72 hours for members to review and approve or reject the candidate). -- Jeff Jirsa > On Jan 25, 2018, at 9:07 PM, Jeff Jirsa wrote: > > Patches welcome. > > -- > Jeff Jirsa > > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> Hi Paulo, >> >> Thanks for looking into the issue on priority. I have serious concerns >> regarding reducing the TTL to 15 yrs.The patch will immediately break all >> existing applications in Production which are using 15+ yrs TTL. And then >> they would be stuck again until all the logic in Production software is >> modified and the software is upgraded immediately. This may take days. Such >> heavy downtime is generally not acceptable for any business. Yes, they will >> not have silent data loss but they would not be able to do any business >> either. I think the permanent fix must be prioritized and put on extremely >> fast track. This is a certain Blocker and the impact could be enormous--with >> and without the 15 year short-term patch. >> >> And believe me --there are plenty such business use cases where you use very >> long TTLs such as 20 yrs for compliance and other reasons. >> >> Thanks >> Anuj >> >> On Friday 26 January 2018, 4:57:13 AM IST, Michael Kjellman >> wrote: >> >> why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the >> actual use case for that. >> >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: >>> >>> The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. >>> >>> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The >>> serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine >>> already. >>> >>> If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as >>> they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. >>> >>> regards, >>> Christian >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on 3.0+ I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we figure a long term solution. 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : > If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you get an assertion error that fails the query. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremiah, >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and data is lost: >> create table test(name text primary key,age int); >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; >> select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; >> >> name | age >> --+- >> >> (0 rows) >> >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" >> ThanksAnuj >> On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like you get an error client side. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can silently cause ir
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Patches welcome. -- Jeff Jirsa > On Jan 25, 2018, at 8:15 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > > Hi Paulo, > > Thanks for looking into the issue on priority. I have serious concerns > regarding reducing the TTL to 15 yrs.The patch will immediately break all > existing applications in Production which are using 15+ yrs TTL. And then > they would be stuck again until all the logic in Production software is > modified and the software is upgraded immediately. This may take days. Such > heavy downtime is generally not acceptable for any business. Yes, they will > not have silent data loss but they would not be able to do any business > either. I think the permanent fix must be prioritized and put on extremely > fast track. This is a certain Blocker and the impact could be enormous--with > and without the 15 year short-term patch. > > And believe me --there are plenty such business use cases where you use very > long TTLs such as 20 yrs for compliance and other reasons. > > Thanks > Anuj > >On Friday 26 January 2018, 4:57:13 AM IST, Michael Kjellman > wrote: > > why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the > actual use case for that. > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: >> >> The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. >> >> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The >> serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine >> already. >> >> If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as >> they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. >> >> regards, >> Christian >> >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed >>> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime >>> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on >>> 3.0+ >>> >>> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce >>> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we >>> figure a long term solution. >>> >>> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking >>> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was >>> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you >>> get an assertion error that fails the query. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >>> wrote: > > > Hi Jeremiah, > Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it >>> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and >>> data is lost: > create table test(name text primary key,age int); > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; > select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; > > name | age > --+- > > (0 rows) > > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >>> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] >>> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" > ThanksAnuj > On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < >>> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully >>> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like >>> you get an error client side. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> >>> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating >>> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 >>> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP >>> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to >>> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no >>> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical >>> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some >>> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all >>> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my >>> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for >>> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> Anuj > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> ---
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Hi Paulo, Thanks for looking into the issue on priority. I have serious concerns regarding reducing the TTL to 15 yrs.The patch will immediately break all existing applications in Production which are using 15+ yrs TTL. And then they would be stuck again until all the logic in Production software is modified and the software is upgraded immediately. This may take days. Such heavy downtime is generally not acceptable for any business. Yes, they will not have silent data loss but they would not be able to do any business either. I think the permanent fix must be prioritized and put on extremely fast track. This is a certain Blocker and the impact could be enormous--with and without the 15 year short-term patch. And believe me --there are plenty such business use cases where you use very long TTLs such as 20 yrs for compliance and other reasons. Thanks Anuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 4:57:13 AM IST, Michael Kjellman wrote: why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the actual use case for that. > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: > > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. > > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > already. > > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > > regards, > Christian > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta > wrote: > >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on >> 3.0+ >> >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we >> figure a long term solution. >> >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you >> get an assertion error that fails the query. >>> >>> -Jeremiah >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: Hi Jeremiah, Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and >> data is lost: create table test(name text primary key,age int); insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; name | age --+- (0 rows) insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" ThanksAnuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like >> you get an error client side. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: > > Hi, > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP >> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to >> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no >> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical >> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some >> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all >> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my >> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for >> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated. > > Thanks > Anuj - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >> Т��
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
localDeletionTime is serialized as a 32-bit int in 2.1 and 2.2 - _not_ as a vint. Those versions need a fix as well and that fix should conceptually be the same for 3.0/3.x/trunk IMO. Reducing the max TTL for now to something less than 20 years, is currently the only viable approach to mitigate the issue soon. Applications that use a TTL of (nearly) 20yrs already have to reduce the TTL. How a long-term fix might look is a separate topic. And that should be handled with care, not rush things. > On 25. Jan 2018, at 22:17, horschi wrote: > > Paulo: > Is readUnsignedVInt() limited to 32 bits? I would expect it to be of > variable size. That would mean that the format would be fine. Correct me > if I'm wong! > > > Brandon: > Some applications might set the TTL dynamically. Of course the TTL could be > capped and or removed in the application. But it might not be so obvious as > you make it sound. > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Paulo Motta > wrote: > >>> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The >> serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine >> already. >> >> Agreed but apparently it needs a new sstable format as well as >> mentioned on CASSANDRA-14092. >> >>> If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as >> they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. >> >> This is an emergency measure while we provide a longer term fix. Any >> application using TTL ~= 20 years will need to be lower the TTL anyway >> to prevent data loss. >> >> 2018-01-25 18:40 GMT-02:00 Brandon Williams : >>> My guess is they don't know how to NOT set a TTL (perhaps with a default >> in >>> the schema), so they chose max value. Someone else's problem by then. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Michael Kjellman >>> wrote: >>> why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about >> the actual use case for that. > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: > > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. > > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. >> The > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > already. > > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might >> fail, as > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > > regards, > Christian > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta < >> pauloricard...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case >> on >> 3.0+ >> >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we >> figure a long term solution. >> >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com > : >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 >> where you >> get an assertion error that fails the query. >>> >>> -Jeremiah >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >>> INVALID> >> wrote: Hi Jeremiah, Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test >> it >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently >> and >> data is lost: create table test(name text primary key,age int); insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; name | age --+- (0 rows) insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid >> query] >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" ThanksAnuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return >> successfully >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like >> you get an error client side. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra > . INVALID> >> wrote: > > Hi, > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for >> inserting/updating >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/ jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP >> M
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Paulo: Is readUnsignedVInt() limited to 32 bits? I would expect it to be of variable size. That would mean that the format would be fine. Correct me if I'm wong! Brandon: Some applications might set the TTL dynamically. Of course the TTL could be capped and or removed in the application. But it might not be so obvious as you make it sound. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:49 PM, Paulo Motta wrote: > > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > already. > > Agreed but apparently it needs a new sstable format as well as > mentioned on CASSANDRA-14092. > > > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > > This is an emergency measure while we provide a longer term fix. Any > application using TTL ~= 20 years will need to be lower the TTL anyway > to prevent data loss. > > 2018-01-25 18:40 GMT-02:00 Brandon Williams : > > My guess is they don't know how to NOT set a TTL (perhaps with a default > in > > the schema), so they chose max value. Someone else's problem by then. > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Michael Kjellman > > wrote: > > > >> why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about > the > >> actual use case for that. > >> > >> > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: > >> > > >> > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. > >> > > >> > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. > The > >> > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > >> > already. > >> > > >> > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might > fail, as > >> > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > >> > > >> > regards, > >> > Christian > >> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta < > pauloricard...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed > >> >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime > >> >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case > on > >> >> 3.0+ > >> >> > >> >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce > >> >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we > >> >> figure a long term solution. > >> >> > >> >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan < > jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com > >> >: > >> >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. > >> Looking > >> >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was > >> >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 > where > >> you > >> >> get an assertion error that fails the query. > >> >>> > >> >>> -Jeremiah > >> >>> > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> INVALID> > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Jeremiah, > >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test > it > >> >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently > and > >> >> data is lost: > >> create table test(name text primary key,age int); > >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL > >> 63072; > >> select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; > >> > >> name | age > >> --+- > >> > >> (0 rows) > >> > >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL > >> >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid > query] > >> >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" > >> ThanksAnuj > >> On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < > >> >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return > successfully > >> >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds > >> like > >> >> you get an error client side. > >> > >> -Jeremiah > >> > >> > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra . > >> INVALID> > >> >> wrote: > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for > inserting/updating > >> >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/ > >> jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 > >> >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain > >> TOP > >> >> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised > to > >> >> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" > and no > >> >> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical > >> >> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from > some > >> >> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for > all > >> >> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my > >> >> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that > trivial > >> for >
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
> The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine already. Agreed but apparently it needs a new sstable format as well as mentioned on CASSANDRA-14092. > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. This is an emergency measure while we provide a longer term fix. Any application using TTL ~= 20 years will need to be lower the TTL anyway to prevent data loss. 2018-01-25 18:40 GMT-02:00 Brandon Williams : > My guess is they don't know how to NOT set a TTL (perhaps with a default in > the schema), so they chose max value. Someone else's problem by then. > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Michael Kjellman > wrote: > >> why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the >> actual use case for that. >> >> > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: >> > >> > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. >> > >> > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The >> > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine >> > already. >> > >> > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as >> > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. >> > >> > regards, >> > Christian >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed >> >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime >> >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on >> >> 3.0+ >> >> >> >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce >> >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we >> >> figure a long term solution. >> >> >> >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan > >: >> >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. >> Looking >> >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was >> >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where >> you >> >> get an assertion error that fails the query. >> >>> >> >>> -Jeremiah >> >>> >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra > INVALID> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremiah, >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it >> >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and >> >> data is lost: >> create table test(name text primary key,age int); >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL >> 63072; >> select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; >> >> name | age >> --+- >> >> (0 rows) >> >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >> >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] >> >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" >> ThanksAnuj >> On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < >> >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully >> >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds >> like >> >> you get an error client side. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >> > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra > INVALID> >> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating >> >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/ >> jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 >> >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain >> TOP >> >> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to >> >> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no >> >> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical >> >> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some >> >> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all >> >> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my >> >> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial >> for >> >> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much >> appreciated. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Anuj >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> - >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >>> >> >> >> >> - >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassa
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
My guess is they don't know how to NOT set a TTL (perhaps with a default in the schema), so they chose max value. Someone else's problem by then. On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Michael Kjellman wrote: > why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the > actual use case for that. > > > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: > > > > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. > > > > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The > > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > > already. > > > > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as > > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > > > > regards, > > Christian > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta > > wrote: > > > >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed > >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime > >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on > >> 3.0+ > >> > >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce > >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we > >> figure a long term solution. > >> > >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan >: > >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. > Looking > >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was > >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where > you > >> get an assertion error that fails the query. > >>> > >>> -Jeremiah > >>> > On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra INVALID> > >> wrote: > > > Hi Jeremiah, > Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it > >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and > >> data is lost: > create table test(name text primary key,age int); > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL > 63072; > select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; > > name | age > --+- > > (0 rows) > > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL > >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] > >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" > ThanksAnuj > On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < > >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully > >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds > like > >> you get an error client side. > > -Jeremiah > > > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra INVALID> > >> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating > >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 > >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain > TOP > >> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to > >> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no > >> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical > >> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some > >> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all > >> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my > >> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial > for > >> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much > appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > Anuj > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >>> > >>> - > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > >> > >
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
why are people inserting data with a 15+ year TTL? sorta curious about the actual use case for that. > On Jan 25, 2018, at 12:36 PM, horschi wrote: > > The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. > > The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The > serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine > already. > > If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as > they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. > > regards, > Christian > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta > wrote: > >> Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed >> CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime >> overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on >> 3.0+ >> >> I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce >> the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we >> figure a long term solution. >> >> 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : >>> If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking >> at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was >> dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you >> get an assertion error that fails the query. >>> >>> -Jeremiah >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: Hi Jeremiah, Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it >> with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and >> data is lost: create table test(name text primary key,age int); insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; name | age --+- (0 rows) insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" ThanksAnuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < >> jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully >> to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like >> you get an error client side. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: > > Hi, > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating >> data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 >> can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP >> MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to >> BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no >> one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical >> vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some >> very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all >> currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my >> understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for >> older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated. > > Thanks > Anuj - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> >>
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
The assertion was working fine until yesterday 03:14 UTC. The long term solution would be to work with a long instead of a int. The serialized seems to be a variable-int already, so that should be fine already. If you change the assertion to 15 years, then applications might fail, as they might be setting a 15+ year ttl. regards, Christian On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Paulo Motta wrote: > Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed > CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime > overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on > 3.0+ > > I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce > the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we > figure a long term solution. > > 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : > > If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking > at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was > dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you > get an assertion error that fails the query. > > > > -Jeremiah > > > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Hi Jeremiah, > >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it > with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and > data is lost: > >> create table test(name text primary key,age int); > >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; > >> select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; > >> > >> name | age > >> --+- > >> > >> (0 rows) > >> > >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL > 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] > message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" > >> ThanksAnuj > >>On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan < > jeremiah.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully > to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like > you get an error client side. > >> > >> -Jeremiah > >> > >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating > data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 > can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP > MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to > BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no > one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical > vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some > very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all > currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my > understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for > older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated. > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> Anuj > >> > >> - > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Thanks for raising this. Agreed this is bad, when I filed CASSANDRA-14092 I thought a write would fail when localDeletionTime overflows (as it is with 2.1), but that doesn't seem to be the case on 3.0+ I propose adding the assertion back so writes will fail, and reduce the max TTL to something like 15 years for the time being while we figure a long term solution. 2018-01-25 18:05 GMT-02:00 Jeremiah D Jordan : > If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking at > the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was dropped > somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you get an > assertion error that fails the query. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Jeremiah, >> Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it with >> below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and data is >> lost: >> create table test(name text primary key,age int); >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; >> select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; >> >> name | age >> --+- >> >> (0 rows) >> >> insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL >> 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] >> message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" >> ThanksAnuj >>On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan >> wrote: >> >> Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully to the >> client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like you get >> an error client side. >> >> -Jeremiah >> >>> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data >>> in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can >>> silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP MOST >>> BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to BLOCKER >>> from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no one seems >>> to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical vulnerability, >>> this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some very experienced >>> folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all currently Supported >>> Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my understanding of the JIRA >>> comments, the changes may not be that trivial for older releases. So, >>> community support on the patch is very much appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Anuj >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
If you aren’t getting an error, then I agree, that is very bad. Looking at the 3.0 code it looks like the assertion checking for overflow was dropped somewhere along the way, I had only been looking into 2.1 where you get an assertion error that fails the query. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 2:21 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > > > Hi Jeremiah, > Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it with > below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and data is > lost: > create table test(name text primary key,age int); > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; > select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; > > name | age > --+- > > (0 rows) > > insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL > 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] > message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" > ThanksAnuj >On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan > wrote: > > Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully to the > client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like you get > an error client side. > > -Jeremiah > >> On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data in >> production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can >> silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP MOST >> BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to BLOCKER >> from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no one seems >> to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical vulnerability, >> this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some very experienced >> folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all currently Supported >> Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my understanding of the JIRA >> comments, the changes may not be that trivial for older releases. So, >> community support on the patch is very much appreciated. >> >> Thanks >> Anuj > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Hi Jeremiah, Validation is on TTL value not on (system_time+ TTL). You can test it with below example. Insert is successful, overflow happens silently and data is lost: create table test(name text primary key,age int); insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yrs',30) USING TTL 63072; select * from test where name='test_20yrs'; name | age --+- (0 rows) insert into test(name,age) values('test_20yr_plus_1',30) USING TTL 630720001;InvalidRequest: Error from server: code=2200 [Invalid query] message="ttl is too large. requested (630720001) maximum (63072)" ThanksAnuj On Friday 26 January 2018, 12:11:03 AM IST, J. D. Jordan wrote: Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like you get an error client side. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > > Hi, > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data in > production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can > silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP MOST > BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to BLOCKER > from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no one seems to > be actively working on it. Just like any other critical vulnerability, this > vulnerability demands immediate attention from some very experienced folks to > bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all currently Supported Cassandra > versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my understanding of the JIRA comments, the > changes may not be that trivial for older releases. So, community support on > the patch is very much appreciated. > > Thanks > Anuj - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Where is the dataloss? Does the INSERT operation return successfully to the client in this case? From reading the linked issues it sounds like you get an error client side. -Jeremiah > On Jan 25, 2018, at 1:24 PM, Anuj Wadehra > wrote: > > Hi, > > For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data in > production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can > silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP MOST > BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to BLOCKER > from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no one seems to > be actively working on it. Just like any other critical vulnerability, this > vulnerability demands immediate attention from some very experienced folks to > bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all currently Supported Cassandra > versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my understanding of the JIRA comments, the > changes may not be that trivial for older releases. So, community support on > the patch is very much appreciated. > > Thanks > Anuj - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
URGENT: CASSANDRA-14092 causes Data Loss
Hi, For all those people who use MAX TTL=20 years for inserting/updating data in production, https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-14092 can silently cause irrecoverable Data Loss. This seems like a certain TOP MOST BLOCKER to me. I think the category of the JIRA must be raised to BLOCKER from Major. Unfortunately, the JIRA is still "Unassigned" and no one seems to be actively working on it. Just like any other critical vulnerability, this vulnerability demands immediate attention from some very experienced folks to bring out an Urgent Fast Track Patch for all currently Supported Cassandra versions 2.1,2.2 and 3.x. As per my understanding of the JIRA comments, the changes may not be that trivial for older releases. So, community support on the patch is very much appreciated. Thanks Anuj