[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2816?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13054841#comment-13054841
]
Terje Marthinussen commented on CASSANDRA-2816:
-----------------------------------------------
Sounds good to me.
This sounds very interesting.
We have also spotted very noticable issues with full GCs when the merkle trees
are passed around. Hopefully this could fix that too.
I will see if I can get this patch tested somewhere if it is ready for that.
On a side topic, given the importance of getting tombstones properly
synchronized within GCGraceSeconds, would it be an potential interesting idea
to separate tombstones in different sstables to reduce the need to scan the
whole dataset very frequently in the first place?
Another thought may be to make compaction deterministic or synchronized by a
master across nodes so for older data, all we needed was to compare pre-stored
md5s of how whole sstables?
That is, while keeping the masterless design for updates, we could consider a
master based design for how older data is being organized by the compactor. so
it would be much easier to verify that "old" data is the same without any large
regular scans and that data is really the same after big compactions etc.
> Repair doesn't synchronize merkle tree creation properly
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-2816
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-2816
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
> Labels: repair
> Fix For: 0.8.2
>
> Attachments: 0001-Schedule-merkle-tree-request-one-by-one.patch
>
>
> Being a little slow, I just realized after having opened CASSANDRA-2811 and
> CASSANDRA-2815 that there is a more general problem with repair.
> When a repair is started, it will send a number of merkle tree to its
> neighbor as well as himself and assume for correction that the building of
> those trees will be started on every node roughly at the same time (if not,
> we end up comparing data snapshot at different time and will thus mistakenly
> repair a lot of useless data). This is bogus for many reasons:
> * Because validation compaction runs on the same executor that other
> compaction, the start of the validation on the different node is subject to
> other compactions. 0.8 mitigates this in a way by being multi-threaded (and
> thus there is less change to be blocked a long time by a long running
> compaction), but the compaction executor being bounded, its still a problem)
> * if you run a nodetool repair without arguments, it will repair every CFs.
> As a consequence it will generate lots of merkle tree requests and all of
> those requests will be issued at the same time. Because even in 0.8 the
> compaction executor is bounded, some of those validations will end up being
> queued behind the first ones. Even assuming that the different validation are
> submitted in the same order on each node (which isn't guaranteed either),
> there is no guarantee that on all nodes, the first validation will take the
> same time, hence desynchronizing the queued ones.
> Overall, it is important for the precision of repair that for a given CF and
> range (which is the unit at which trees are computed), we make sure that all
> node will start the validation at the same time (or, since we can't do magic,
> as close as possible).
> One (reasonably simple) proposition to fix this would be to have repair
> schedule validation compactions across nodes one by one (i.e, one CF/range at
> a time), waiting for all nodes to return their tree before submitting the
> next request. Then on each node, we should make sure that the node will start
> the validation compaction as soon as requested. For that, we probably want to
> have a specific executor for validation compaction and:
> * either we fail the whole repair whenever one node is not able to execute
> the validation compaction right away (because no thread are available right
> away).
> * we simply tell the user that if he start too many repairs in parallel, he
> may start seeing some of those repairing more data than it should.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
