[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6106?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13780521#comment-13780521
 ] 

Christopher Smith commented on CASSANDRA-6106:
----------------------------------------------

The issue behind the rev2 patch also highlights another issue with the "clock 
skew" concern in general. To a certain degree we have to acknowledge that the 
existing code *already* allows incorrect timestamps in the face of clock skew. 
If a node's time is ahead by a N millis from other nodes, even after the clock 
gets corrected, writes to that node will win when they shouldn't until N millis 
have passed, because "clock" is designed to be increasing only.
                
> QueryState.getTimestamp() & FBUtilities.timestampMicros() reads current 
> timestamp with System.currentTimeMillis() * 1000 instead of System.nanoTime() 
> / 1000
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-6106
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6106
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Core
>         Environment: DSE Cassandra 3.1, but also HEAD
>            Reporter: Christopher Smith
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: collision, conflict, timestamp
>         Attachments: microtimstamp.patch, microtimstamp_random.patch, 
> microtimstamp_random_rev2.patch
>
>
> I noticed this blog post: http://aphyr.com/posts/294-call-me-maybe-cassandra 
> mentioned issues with millisecond rounding in timestamps and was able to 
> reproduce the issue. If I specify a timestamp in a mutating query, I get 
> microsecond precision, but if I don't, I get timestamps rounded to the 
> nearest millisecond, at least for my first query on a given connection, which 
> substantially increases the possibilities of collision.
> I believe I found the offending code, though I am by no means sure this is 
> comprehensive. I think we probably need a fairly comprehensive replacement of 
> all uses of System.currentTimeMillis() with System.nanoTime().

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

Reply via email to