[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9131?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14485308#comment-14485308
 ] 

Jonathan Ellis commented on CASSANDRA-9131:
-------------------------------------------

This is a good example of why I'm not sure pushing timestamps to the client and 
saying "here, you figure it out" is such a great idea. /cc [~slebresne]

> Defining correct behavior during leap second insertion
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-9131
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-9131
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>         Environment: Linux ip-172-31-0-5 3.2.0-57-virtual #87-Ubuntu SMP Tue 
> Nov 12 21:53:49 UTC 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>            Reporter: Jim Witschey
>
> On Linux platforms, the insertion of a leap second breaks the monotonicity of 
> timestamps. This can make values appear to have been inserted into Cassandra 
> in a different order than they were. I want to know what behavior is expected 
> and desirable for inserts over this discontinuity.
> From a timestamp perspective, an inserted leap second looks like a repeat of 
> the previous second:
> {code}
> $ while true ; do echo "`date +%s%N` `date -u`" ; sleep .5 ; done
> 1435708798171327029 Tue Jun 30 23:59:58 UTC 2015
> 1435708798679392477 Tue Jun 30 23:59:58 UTC 2015
> 1435708799187550335 Tue Jun 30 23:59:59 UTC 2015
> 1435708799695670453 Tue Jun 30 23:59:59 UTC 2015
> 1435708799203902068 Tue Jun 30 23:59:59 UTC 2015
> 1435708799712168566 Tue Jun 30 23:59:59 UTC 2015
> 1435708800220473932 Wed Jul 1 00:00:00 UTC 2015
> 1435708800728908190 Wed Jul 1 00:00:00 UTC 2015
> 1435708801237611983 Wed Jul 1 00:00:01 UTC 2015
> 1435708801746251996 Wed Jul 1 00:00:01 UTC 2015
> {code}
> Note that 23:59:59 repeats itself, and that the timestamps increase during 
> the first time through, then step back down to the beginning of the second 
> and increase again.
> As a result, the timestamps on values inserted during these seconds will be 
> out of order. I set up a 4-node cluster running under Ubuntu 12.04.3 and 
> synced them to shortly before the leap second would be inserted. During the 
> insertion of the leap second, I ran a test with logic something like:
> {code}
> simple_insert = session.prepare(
>     'INSERT INTO test (foo, bar) VALUES (?, ?);')
> for i in itertools.count():
>     # stop after midnight
>     now = datetime.utcnow()
>     last_midnight = now.replace(hour=0, minute=0,
>                                 second=0, microsecond=0)
>     seconds_since_midnight = (now - last_midnight).total_seconds()
>     if 5 <= seconds_since_midnight <= 15:
>         break
>     session.execute(simple_insert, [i, i])
> result = session.execute("SELECT bar, WRITETIME(bar) FROM test;")
> {code}
> Under normal circumstances, the values and writetimes would increase 
> together, but when inserted over the leap second, they don't. These {{value, 
> writetime}} pairs are sorted by writetime:
> {code}
> (582, 1435708799285000)
> (579, 1435708799339000)
> (583, 1435708799593000)
> (580, 1435708799643000)
> (584, 1435708799897000)
> (581, 1435708799958000)
> {code}
> The values were inserted in increasing order, but their writetimes are in a 
> different order because of the repeated second. During the first instance of 
> 23:59:59, the values 579, 580, and 581 were inserted at the beginning, 
> middle, and end of the second. During the leap second, which is also 
> 23:59:59, 582, 583, and 584 were inserted, also at the beginning, middle, and 
> end of the second. However, since the two seconds are the same second, they 
> appear interleaved with respect to timestamps, as shown above.
> So, should I consider this behavior correct? If not, how should Cassandra 
> correctly handle the discontinuity introduced by the insertion of a leap 
> second?



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

Reply via email to