[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10740?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15021840#comment-15021840
]
Marcus Eriksson commented on CASSANDRA-10740:
---------------------------------------------
We usually generate actual sstables, did you have a look at the other tests in
CleanupTest ?
> Incorrect condition causes cleanup of SSTables which might not need it
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-10740
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-10740
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Jakub Janecek
> Fix For: 2.1.x
>
> Attachments: trunk-10740.txt
>
>
> We needed to perform cleanup of SSTables in our production cluster but found
> out that it would take several months. Together with my colleague
> [~JiriHorky] we have pinpointed the issue to method
> CompactionManager.needsCleanup which incorrectly marks almost all SSTables as
> the ones needing the cleanup even though that might not be true. I am
> attaching a patch which should be applicable from version 2.x forward (this
> is the version we would need it in).
> To explain the problem, the last condition in the cycle that checks whether
> the next key in the SSTable after the current checked range is NOT contained
> in the next range falsely marks SSTable as necessary to have cleanup even
> though it might be contained in some other range. The correct condition
> (which is actully described in the comment) is to check whether the next key
> in the SSTable after the current range is less than or equal to the "left"
> key of the next range (assuming that the left key is exclusive which is
> described in another comment of the same method).
> Is our patch and reasoning correct?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
