[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7317?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14013262#comment-14013262
]
Nick Bailey commented on CASSANDRA-7317:
----------------------------------------
Even if we were to decide that this is the correct behavior, it gets hard to
reason about as you increase tokens, or datacenters. If we expand the above
example to three datacenters and the keyspace exists in dc1 and dc2 but not
dc3, which ranges is dc1 the primary for and which ranges is dc2 the primary
for. Somebody will have to be responsible for the ranges dc3 'owns'.
> Repair range validation and calculation is off
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-7317
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7317
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Nick Bailey
> Fix For: 2.0.9
>
> Attachments: Untitled Diagram(1).png
>
>
> From what I can tell the calculation (using the -pr option) and validation of
> tokens for repairing ranges is broken. Or at least should be improved. Using
> an example with ccm:
> Nodetool ring:
> {noformat}
> Datacenter: dc1
> ==========
> Address Rack Status State Load Owns
> Token
> -10
> 127.0.0.1 r1 Up Normal 188.96 KB 50.00%
> -9223372036854775808
> 127.0.0.2 r1 Up Normal 194.77 KB 50.00% -10
> Datacenter: dc2
> ==========
> Address Rack Status State Load Owns
> Token
> 0
> 127.0.0.4 r1 Up Normal 160.58 KB 0.00%
> -9223372036854775798
> 127.0.0.3 r1 Up Normal 139.46 KB 0.00% 0
> {noformat}
> Schema:
> {noformat}
> CREATE KEYSPACE system_traces WITH replication = {
> 'class': 'NetworkTopologyStrategy',
> 'dc2': '2',
> 'dc1': '2'
> };
> {noformat}
> Repair -pr:
> {noformat}
> [Nicks-MacBook-Pro:21:35:58 cassandra-2.0] cassandra$ bin/nodetool -p 7100
> repair -pr system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:36:01,977] Starting repair command #12, repairing 1 ranges for
> keyspace system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:36:02,207] Repair session f984d290-e6d9-11e3-9edc-5f8011daec21
> for range (0,-9223372036854775808] finished
> [2014-05-28 21:36:02,207] Repair command #12 finished
> [Nicks-MacBook-Pro:21:36:02 cassandra-2.0] cassandra$ bin/nodetool -p 7200
> repair -pr system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:36:14,086] Starting repair command #1, repairing 1 ranges for
> keyspace system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:36:14,406] Repair session 00bd45b0-e6da-11e3-98fc-5f8011daec21
> for range (-9223372036854775798,-10] finished
> [2014-05-28 21:36:14,406] Repair command #1 finished
> {noformat}
> Note that repairing both nodes in dc1, leaves very small ranges unrepaired.
> For example (-10,0]. Repairing the 'primary range' in dc2 will repair those
> small ranges. Maybe that is the behavior we want but it seems
> counterintuitive.
> The behavior when manually trying to repair the full range of 127.0.0.01
> definitely needs improvement though.
> Repair command:
> {noformat}
> [Nicks-MacBook-Pro:21:50:44 cassandra-2.0] cassandra$ bin/nodetool -p 7100
> repair -st -10 -et -9223372036854775808 system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:50:55,803] Starting repair command #17, repairing 1 ranges for
> keyspace system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:50:55,804] Starting repair command #17, repairing 1 ranges for
> keyspace system_traces
> [2014-05-28 21:50:55,804] Repair command #17 finished
> [Nicks-MacBook-Pro:21:50:56 cassandra-2.0] cassandra$ echo $?
> 1
> {noformat}
> system.log:
> {noformat}
> ERROR [Thread-96] 2014-05-28 21:40:05,921 StorageService.java (line 2621)
> Repair session failed:
> java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Requested range intersects a local range
> but is not fully contained in one; this would lead to imprecise repair
> {noformat}
> * The actual output of the repair command doesn't really indicate that there
> was an issue. Although the command does return with a non zero exit status.
> * The error here is invisible if you are using the synchronous jmx repair
> api. It will appear as though the repair completed successfully.
> * Personally, I believe that should be a valid repair command. For the
> system_traces keyspace, 127.0.0.1 is responsible for this range (and I would
> argue the 'primary range' of the node).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
