[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19703?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17928573#comment-17928573
 ] 

Yuqi Yan edited comment on CASSANDRA-19703 at 2/19/25 9:48 PM:
---------------------------------------------------------------

To provide some more context on this issue:

This race condition results in a larger system table and slow down the restart 
- which is "fine". But this reveals a more severe issue (which we saw in 
production), that because the new behavior evicting these newly inserted 
statements too early, if user is not using prepared statements properly and try 
to prepare a bunch of non-unique new statements, the instance can be easily 
overloaded by this prepare-evict-prepare cycle.


was (Author: JIRAUSER301388):
To provide some more context on this issue:

This race condition results in a larger system table and slow down the restart 
- which is "fine". But this reveals a more severe issue (which we saw in 
production), that because the new behavior evicting these newly inserted 
statements too early, if user is not using prepared statements properly and try 
to prepare a bunch of new statements, the instance can be easily overloaded by 
this prepare-evict-prepare cycle.

> Newly inserted prepared statements got evicted too early from cache that 
> leads to race condition
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-19703
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-19703
>             Project: Apache Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Yuqi Yan
>            Assignee: Cameron Zemek
>            Priority: Normal
>             Fix For: 4.1.x
>
>
> We're upgrading from Cassandra 4.0 to Cassandra 4.1.3 and 
> system.prepared_statements table size start growing to GB size after upgrade. 
> This slows down node startup significantly when it's doing 
> preloadPreparedStatements
> I can't share the exact log but it's a race condition like this:
>  # [Thread 1] Receives a prepared request for S1. Attempts to get S1 in cache
>  # [Thread 1] Cache miss, put this S1 into cache
>  # [Thread 1] Attempts to write S1 into local table
>  # [Thread 2] Receives a prepared request for S2. Attempts to get S2 in cache
>  # [Thread 2] Cache miss, put this S2 into cache
>  # [Thread 2] Cache is full, evicting S1 from cache
>  # [Thread 2] Attempts to delete S1 from local table
>  # [Thread 2] Tombstone inserted for S1, delete finished
>  # [Thread 1] Record inserted for S1, write finished
> Thread 2 inserted a tombstone for S1 earlier than Thread 1 was able to insert 
> the record in the table. Hence the data will not be removed because the later 
> insert has newer write time than the tombstone.
> Whether this would happen or not depends on how the cache decides what’s the 
> next entry to evict when it’s full. We noticed that in 4.1.3 Caffeine was 
> upgraded to 2.9.2 CASSANDRA-15153
>  
> I did a small research in Caffeine commits. It seems this commit was causing 
> the entry got evicted to early: Eagerly evict an entry if it too large to fit 
> in the cache(Feb 2021), available after 2.9.0: 
> [https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine/commit/464bc1914368c47a0203517fda2151fbedaf568b]
> And later fixed in: Improve eviction when overflow or the weight is 
> oversized(Aug 2022), available after 3.1.2: 
> [https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine/commit/25b7d17b1a246a63e4991d4902a2ecf24e86d234]
> {quote}Previously an attempt to centralize evictions into one code path led 
> to a suboptimal approach 
> ([{{464bc19}}|https://github.com/ben-manes/caffeine/commit/464bc1914368c47a0203517fda2151fbedaf568b]
> ). This tried to move those entries into the LRU position for early eviction, 
> but was confusing and could too aggressively evict something that is 
> desirable to keep.
> {quote}
>  
> I upgrade the Caffeine to 3.1.8 (same as 5.0 trunk) and this issue is gone. 
> But I think this version is not compatible with Java 8.
> I'm not 100% sure if this is the root cause and what's the correct fix here. 
> Would appreciate if anyone can have a look, thanks
>  
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to