[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6178?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13792631#comment-13792631
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-6178:
---------------------------------------------
bq. Let's not forget that "Bad Things happen if not just your server clocks but
also your app server clocks are not synchronized" confuses people too.
I don't really buy that "you need to synchronize your server clocks" would
somewhat make perfect sense but doing so for the clients would be highly
confusing. Using server-side timestamps solves in *no* way whatsoever the
situation that this stackoverflow user describe in particular.
I'm not really convinced that server side timestamps makes much of anything
simpler for a user point of view (versus having the timestamp set by the driver
that is). Yes, you need to run ntpd on your clients too, but that sound hardly
a big deal to me. In fact, provided you have any timeseries type usage, it's
probably a good idea to synchronize your clients clock anyway for the sake of
your (time-based) column names.
bq. What if we just made the client default to a single server per Session and
only failover when necessary?
To be honest, I think that's a really bad idea.
First, that does not really work, since when you failover, you'll still
potentially fail the "sequential updates made on the same client thread will be
applied sequentially".
And secondly, that heavily constraint the architecture of clients. Concretely,
that goes against the basic architecture of the java driver for instance: it
breaks pretty much all of the load balancing policies provided, including
things like token aware and latency based policies. And the driver does not
distinguish between reads and writes because one of our most fundamental design
choice from day one has been "we do not parse the query client side". It also
makes it harder to manage your server connections efficiently (in particular, I
don't know how to even code this with the current java driver API without
relying on thread IDs, but there's no easy way to know when a thread dies so
that would be a mess).
And all this for what? Because we're afraid asking people to set-up ntpd client
side is too much?
> Consider allowing timestamp at the protocol level ... and deprecating server
> side timestamps
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-6178
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-6178
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Sylvain Lebresne
> Assignee: Sylvain Lebresne
>
> Generating timestamps server side by default for CQL has been done for
> convenience, so that end-user don't have to provide one with every query.
> However, doing it server side has the downside that updates made sequentially
> by one single client (thread) are no guaranteed to have sequentially
> increasing timestamps. Unless a client thread is always pinned to one
> specific server connection that is, but no good client driver out (that is,
> including thrit driver) there does that because that's contradictory to
> abstracting fault tolerance to the driver user (and goes again most sane load
> balancing strategy).
> Very concretely, this means that if you write a very trivial test program
> that sequentially insert a value and then erase it (or overwrite it), then,
> if you let CQL pick timestamp server side, the deletion might not erase the
> just inserted value (because the delete might reach a different coordinator
> than the insert and thus get a lower timestamp). From the user point of view,
> this is a very confusing behavior, and understandably so: if timestamps are
> optional, you'd hope that they are least respect the sequentiality of
> operation from a single client thread.
> Of course we do support client-side assigned timestamps so it's not like the
> test above is not fixable. And you could argue that's it's not a bug per-se.
> Still, it's a very confusing "default" behavior for something very simple,
> which suggest it's not the best default.
> You could also argue that inserting a value and deleting/overwriting right
> away (in the same thread) is not something real program often do. And indeed,
> it's likely that in practice server-side timestamps work fine for most real
> application. Still, it's too easy to get counter-intuitive behavior with
> server-side timestamps and I think we should consider moving away from them.
> So what I'd suggest is that we push back the job of providing timestamp
> client side. But to make it easy for the driver to generate it (rather than
> the end user), we should allow providing said timestamp at the protocol level.
> As a side note, letting the client provide the timestamp would also have the
> advantage of making it easy for the driver to retry failed operations with
> their initial timestamp, so that retries are truly idempotent.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
