I believe it is: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/~cameron.hatfield
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Sijie Guo <sij...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote: > Cameron, > > Can you send me your wiki account name? I can grant you the permission to > edit it. > > - Sijie > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Cameron Hatfield <kin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Also, would it be possible for me to get wiki access so I will be able to > > update it / etc? > > > > -Cameron > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Cameron Hatfield <kin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > "A couple of questions" is what I originally wrote, and then the > > following > > > happened. Sorry about the large swath of them, making sure my > > understanding > > > of the code base, as well as the DL/Bookkeeper/ZK ecosystem > interaction, > > > makes sense. > > > > > > ==General: > > > What is an exclusive session? What is it providing over a regular > > session? > > > > > > > > > ==Proxy side: > > > Should a new streamop be added for the fencing operation, or does it > make > > > sense to piggyback on an existing one (such as write)? > > > > > > ====getLastDLSN: > > > What should be the return result for: > > > A new stream > > > A new session, after successful fencing > > > A new session, after a change in ownership / first starting up > > > > > > What is the main use case for getLastDLSN(<stream>, false)? Is this to > > > guarantee that the recovery process has happened in case of ownership > > > failure (I don't have a good understanding of what causes the recovery > > > process to happen, especially from the reader side)? Or is it to handle > > the > > > lost-ack problem? Since all the rest of the read related things go > > through > > > the read client, I'm not sure if I see the use case, but it seems like > > > there would be a large potential for confusion on which to use. What > > about > > > just a fenceSession op, that always fences, returning the DLSN of the > > > fence, and leave the normal getLastDLSN for the regular read client. > > > > > > ====Fencing: > > > When a fence session occurs, what call needs to be made to make sure > any > > > outstanding writes are flushed and committed (so that we guarantee the > > > client will be able to read anything that was in the write queue)? > > > Is there a guaranteed ordering for things written in the future queue > for > > > AsyncLogWriter (I'm not quite confident that I was able to accurately > > > follow the logic, as their are many parts of the code that write, have > > > queues, heartbeat, etc)? > > > > > > ====SessionID: > > > What is the default sessionid / transactionid for a new stream? I > assume > > > this would just be the first control record > > > > > > ======Should all streams have a sessionid by default, regardless if it > is > > > never used by a client (aka, everytime ownership changes, a new control > > > record is generated, and a sessionid is stored)? > > > Main edge case that would have to be handled is if a client writes with > > an > > > old sessionid, but the owner has changed and has yet to create a > > sessionid. > > > This should be handled by the "non-matching sessionid" rule, since the > > > invalid sessionid wouldn't match the passed sessionid, which should > cause > > > the client to get a new sessionid. > > > > > > ======Where in the code does it make sense to own the session, the > stream > > > interfaces / classes? Should they pass that information down to the > ops, > > or > > > do the sessionid check within? > > > My first thought would be Stream owns the sessionid, passes it into the > > > ops (as either a nullable value, or an invalid default value), which > then > > > do the sessionid check if they care. The main issue is updating the > > > sessionid is a bit backwards, as either every op has the ability to > > update > > > it through some type of return value / direct stream access / etc, or > > there > > > is a special case in the stream for the fence operation / any other > > > operation that can update the session. > > > > > > ======For "the owner of the log stream will first advance the > transaction > > > id generator to claim a new transaction id and write a control record > to > > > the log stream. ": > > > Should "DistributedLogConstants.CONTROL_RECORD_CONTENT" be the type of > > > control record written? > > > Should the "writeControlRecord" on the BKAsyncLogWriter be exposed in > the > > > AsyncLogWriter interface be exposed? Or even in the one within the > > segment > > > writer? Or should the code be duplicated / pulled out into a helper / > > etc? > > > (Not a big Java person, so any suggestions on the "Java Way", or at > least > > > the DL way, to do it would be appreciated) > > > > > > ======Transaction ID: > > > The BKLogSegmentWriter ignores the transaction ids from control records > > > when it records the "LastTXId." Would that be an issue here for > anything? > > > It looks like it may do that because it assumes you're calling it's > local > > > function for writing a controlrecord, which uses the lastTxId. > > > > > > > > > ==Thrift Interface: > > > ====Should the write response be split out for different calls? > > > It seems odd to have a single struct with many optional items that are > > > filled depending on the call made for every rpc call. This is mostly a > > > curiosity question, since I assume it comes from the general practices > > from > > > using thrift for a while. Would it at least make sense for the > > > getLastDLSN/fence endpoint to have a new struct? > > > > > > ====Any particular error code that makes sense for session fenced? If > we > > > want to be close to the HTTP errors, looks like 412 (PRECONDITION > FAILED) > > > might make the most sense, if a bit generic. > > > > > > 412 def: > > > "The precondition given in one or more of the request-header fields > > > evaluated to false when it was tested on the server. This response code > > > allows the client to place preconditions on the current resource > > > metainformation (header field data) and thus prevent the requested > method > > > from being applied to a resource other than the one intended." > > > > > > 412 excerpt from the If-match doc: > > > "This behavior is most useful when the client wants to prevent an > > updating > > > method, such as PUT, from modifying a resource that has changed since > the > > > client last retrieved it." > > > > > > ====Should we return the sessionid to the client in the "fencesession" > > > calls? > > > Seems like it may be useful when you fence, especially if you have some > > > type of custom sequencer where it would make sense for search, or for > > > debugging. > > > Main minus is that it would be easy for users to create an implicit > > > requirement that the sessionid is forever a valid transactionid, which > > may > > > not always be the case long term for the project. > > > > > > > > > ==Client: > > > ====What is the proposed process for the client retrieving the new > > > sessionid? > > > A full reconnect? No special case code, but intrusive on the client > side, > > > and possibly expensive garbage/processing wise. (though this type of > > > failure should hopefully be rare enough to not be a problem) > > > A call to reset the sessionid? Less intrusive, all the issues you get > > with > > > mutable object methods that need to be called in a certain order, edge > > > cases such as outstanding/buffered requests to the old stream, etc. > > > The call could also return the new sessionid, making it a good call for > > > storing or debugging the value. > > > > > > ====Session Fenced failure: > > > Will this put the client into a failure state, stopping all future > writes > > > until fixed? > > > Is it even possible to get this error when ownership changes? The > > > connection to the new owner should get a new sessionid on connect, so I > > > would expect not. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Cameron > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Thank you, Cameron. Look forward to your comments. > > >> > > >> - Xi > > >> > > >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Cameron Hatfield <kin...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Sorry, I've been on vacation for the past week, and heads down for a > > >> > release that is using DL at the end of Nov. I'll take a look at this > > >> over > > >> > the next week, and add any relevant comments. After we are finished > > with > > >> > dev for this release, I am hoping to tackle this next. > > >> > > > >> > -Cameron > > >> > > > >> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Xi, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thank you so much for your proposal. I took a look. It looks fine > to > > >> me. > > >> > > Cameron, do you have any comments? > > >> > > > > >> > > Look forward to your pull requests. > > >> > > > > >> > > - Sijie > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Xi Liu <xi.liu....@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Cameron, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Have you started any work for this? I just updated the proposal > > >> page - > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/DL/DP-2+-+ > > >> > > Epoch+Write+Support > > >> > > > Maybe we can work together with this. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Sijie, Leigh, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > can you guys help review this to make sure our proposal is in > the > > >> right > > >> > > > direction? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > - Xi > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DL-63 for > > >> tracking > > >> > the > > >> > > > > proposed idea here. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sijie Guo > > >> > <sij...@twitter.com.invalid > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Cameron Hatfield < > > >> > kin...@gmail.com > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Yes, we are reading the HBase WAL (from their replication > > >> plugin > > >> > > > > > support), > > >> > > > > > > and writing that into DL. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Gotcha. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From the sounds of it, yes, it would. Only thing I would > say > > >> is > > >> > > make > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > epoch requirement optional, so that if I client doesn't > care > > >> > about > > >> > > > > dupes > > >> > > > > > > they don't have to deal with the process of getting a new > > >> epoch. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Yup. This should be optional. I can start a wiki page on how > > we > > >> > want > > >> > > to > > >> > > > > > implement this. Are you interested in contributing to this? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Cameron > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Sijie Guo > > >> > > > <sij...@twitter.com.invalid > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Sijie Guo < > > >> sij...@twitter.com > > >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016, Cameron Hatfield < > > >> > > kin...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Answer inline: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Sijie Guo < > > >> > si...@apache.org > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Cameron, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Thank you for your summary. I liked the discussion > > >> here. I > > >> > > > also > > >> > > > > > > liked > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > summary of your requirement - > 'single-writer-per-key, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > multiple-writers-per-log'. If I understand > correctly, > > >> the > > >> > > core > > >> > > > > > > concern > > >> > > > > > > > >> here > > >> > > > > > > > >> > is almost 'exact-once' write (or a way to explicit > > tell > > >> > if a > > >> > > > > write > > >> > > > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > >> be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > retried or not). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Comments inline. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Cameron Hatfield > < > > >> > > > > > > kin...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Ah- yes good point (to be clear we're not using > > the > > >> > > proxy > > >> > > > > this > > >> > > > > > > way > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > today). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Due to the source of the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot guarantee > > >> that a > > >> > > > > single > > >> > > > > > > > >> partition > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > will > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > be owned for writes by the same client. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Do you mean you *need* to support multiple > > writers > > >> > > issuing > > >> > > > > > > > >> interleaved > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > writes or is it just that they might sometimes > > >> > > interleave > > >> > > > > > writes > > >> > > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > >> > you > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >don't care? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > How HBase partitions the keys being written > > wouldn't > > >> > have > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > > > one->one > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > mapping with the partitions we would have in > HBase. > > >> Even > > >> > > if > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > > did > > >> > > > > > > > >> have > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > that alignment when the cluster first started, > > HBase > > >> > will > > >> > > > > > > rebalance > > >> > > > > > > > >> what > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > servers own what partitions, as well as split and > > >> merge > > >> > > > > > partitions > > >> > > > > > > > >> that > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > already exist, causing eventual drift from one > log > > >> per > > >> > > > > > partition. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Because we want ordering guarantees per key (row > in > > >> > > hbase), > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > >> partition > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the logs by the key. Since multiple writers are > > >> possible > > >> > > per > > >> > > > > > range > > >> > > > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > >> > keys > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > (due to the aforementioned rebalancing / > splitting > > / > > >> etc > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > hbase), > > >> > > > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > cannot use the core library due to requiring a > > single > > >> > > writer > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > >> > ordering. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > But, for a single log, we don't really care about > > >> > ordering > > >> > > > > aside > > >> > > > > > > > from > > >> > > > > > > > >> at > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the per-key level. So all we really need to be > able > > >> to > > >> > > > handle > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> > preventing > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > duplicates when a failure occurs, and ordering > > >> > consistency > > >> > > > > > across > > >> > > > > > > > >> > requests > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > from a single client. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > So our general requirements are: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Write A, Write B > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Timeline: A -> B > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Request B is only made after A has successfully > > >> returned > > >> > > > > > (possibly > > >> > > > > > > > >> after > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > retries) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 1) If the write succeeds, it will be durably > > exposed > > >> to > > >> > > > > clients > > >> > > > > > > > within > > >> > > > > > > > >> > some > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > bounded time frame > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Guaranteed. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 2) If A succeeds and B succeeds, the ordering for > > the > > >> > log > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > A > > >> > > > > > > > >> and > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > then B > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If I understand correctly here, B is only sent > after > > A > > >> is > > >> > > > > > returned, > > >> > > > > > > > >> right? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If that's the case, It is guaranteed. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 3) If A fails due to an error that can be relied > on > > >> to > > >> > > *not* > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > lost > > >> > > > > > > > >> > ack > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > problem, it will never be exposed to the client, > so > > >> it > > >> > may > > >> > > > > > > > (depending > > >> > > > > > > > >> on > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the error) be retried immediately > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If it is not a lost-ack problem, the entry will be > > >> > exposed. > > >> > > it > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> > guaranteed. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Let me try rephrasing the questions, to make sure I'm > > >> > > > > understanding > > >> > > > > > > > >> correctly: > > >> > > > > > > > >> If A fails, with an error such as "Unable to create > > >> > connection > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >> bookkeeper server", that would be the type of error > we > > >> would > > >> > > > > expect > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> able to retry immediately, as that result means no > > action > > >> > was > > >> > > > > taken > > >> > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > > any > > >> > > > > > > > >> log / etc, so no entry could have been created. This > is > > >> > > > different > > >> > > > > > > then a > > >> > > > > > > > >> "Connection Timeout" exception, as we just might not > > have > > >> > > > gotten a > > >> > > > > > > > >> response > > >> > > > > > > > >> in time. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > Gotcha. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The response code returned from proxy can tell if a > > >> failure > > >> > can > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > retried > > >> > > > > > > > > safely or not. (We might need to make them well > > >> documented) > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 4) If A fails due to an error that could be a > lost > > >> ack > > >> > > > problem > > >> > > > > > > > >> (network > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > connectivity / etc), within a bounded time frame > it > > >> > should > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> possible to > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > find out if the write succeed or failed. Either > by > > >> > reading > > >> > > > > from > > >> > > > > > > some > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > checkpoint of the log for the changes that should > > >> have > > >> > > been > > >> > > > > made > > >> > > > > > > or > > >> > > > > > > > >> some > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > other possible server-side support. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If I understand this correctly, it is a duplication > > >> issue, > > >> > > > > right? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Can a de-duplication solution work here? Either DL > or > > >> your > > >> > > > > client > > >> > > > > > > does > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > de-duplication? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> The requirements I'm mentioning are the ones needed > for > > >> > > > > client-side > > >> > > > > > > > >> dedupping. Since if I can guarantee writes being > > exposed > > >> > > within > > >> > > > > some > > >> > > > > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > > >> frame, and I can never get into an inconsistently > > ordered > > >> > > state > > >> > > > > when > > >> > > > > > > > >> successes happen, when an error occurs, I can always > > wait > > >> > for > > >> > > > max > > >> > > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > > >> frame, read the latest writes, and then dedup locally > > >> > against > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > request > > >> > > > > > > > >> I > > >> > > > > > > > >> just made. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> The main thing about that timeframe is that its > > basically > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > addition > > >> > > > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > >> every timeout, all the way down in the system, > combined > > >> with > > >> > > > > > whatever > > >> > > > > > > > >> flushing / caching / etc times are at the bookkeeper > / > > >> > client > > >> > > > > level > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > >> when values are exposed > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Gotcha. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Is there any ways to identify your write? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > I can think of a case as follow - I want to know > what > > >> is > > >> > > your > > >> > > > > > > expected > > >> > > > > > > > >> > behavior from the log. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > a) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > If a hbase region server A writes a change of key K > > to > > >> the > > >> > > > log, > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> change > > >> > > > > > > > >> > is successfully made to the log; > > >> > > > > > > > >> > but server A is down before receiving the change. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > region server B took over the region that contains > K, > > >> what > > >> > > > will > > >> > > > > B > > >> > > > > > > do? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> HBase writes in large chunks (WAL Logs), which its > > >> > replication > > >> > > > > > system > > >> > > > > > > > then > > >> > > > > > > > >> handles by replaying in the case of failure. If I'm > in > > a > > >> > > middle > > >> > > > > of a > > >> > > > > > > > log, > > >> > > > > > > > >> and the whole region goes down and gets rescheduled > > >> > > elsewhere, I > > >> > > > > > will > > >> > > > > > > > >> start > > >> > > > > > > > >> back up from the beginning of the log I was in the > > middle > > >> > of. > > >> > > > > Using > > >> > > > > > > > >> checkpointing + deduping, we should be able to find > out > > >> > where > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > > left > > >> > > > > > > > off > > >> > > > > > > > >> in the log. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > b) same as a). but server A was just network > > >> partitioned. > > >> > > will > > >> > > > > > both > > >> > > > > > > A > > >> > > > > > > > >> and B > > >> > > > > > > > >> > write the change of key K? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> HBase gives us some guarantees around network > > partitions > > >> > > > > > (Consistency > > >> > > > > > > > over > > >> > > > > > > > >> availability for HBase). HBase is a single-master > > >> failover > > >> > > > > recovery > > >> > > > > > > type > > >> > > > > > > > >> of > > >> > > > > > > > >> system, with zookeeper-based guarantees for single > > owners > > >> > > > > (writers) > > >> > > > > > > of a > > >> > > > > > > > >> range of data. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > 5) If A is turned into multiple batches (one > large > > >> > request > > >> > > > > gets > > >> > > > > > > > split > > >> > > > > > > > >> > into > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > multiple smaller ones to the bookkeeper backend, > > due > > >> to > > >> > > log > > >> > > > > > > rolling > > >> > > > > > > > / > > >> > > > > > > > >> > size > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > / etc): > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > a) The ordering of entries within batches have > > >> > ordering > > >> > > > > > > > consistence > > >> > > > > > > > >> > with > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > the original request, when exposed in the log > > (though > > >> > they > > >> > > > may > > >> > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > interleaved with other requests) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > b) The ordering across batches have ordering > > >> > consistence > > >> > > > > with > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > original request, when exposed in the log (though > > >> they > > >> > may > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> interleaved > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > with other requests) > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > c) If a batch fails, and cannot be retried / is > > >> > > > > unsuccessfully > > >> > > > > > > > >> retried, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > all batches after the failed batch should not be > > >> exposed > > >> > > in > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > log. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Note: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > The batches before and including the failed > batch, > > >> that > > >> > > > ended > > >> > > > > up > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > succeeding, can show up in the log, again within > > some > > >> > > > bounded > > >> > > > > > time > > >> > > > > > > > >> range > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > for reads by a client. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > There is a method 'writeBulk' in > DistributedLogClient > > >> can > > >> > > > > achieve > > >> > > > > > > this > > >> > > > > > > > >> > guarantee. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > However, I am not very sure about how will you > turn A > > >> into > > >> > > > > > batches. > > >> > > > > > > If > > >> > > > > > > > >> you > > >> > > > > > > > >> > are dividing A into batches, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > you can simply control the application write > sequence > > >> to > > >> > > > achieve > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > guarantee here. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Can you explain more about this? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> In this case, by batches I mean what the proxy does > > with > > >> the > > >> > > > > single > > >> > > > > > > > >> request > > >> > > > > > > > >> that I send it. If the proxy decides it needs to turn > > my > > >> > > single > > >> > > > > > > request > > >> > > > > > > > >> into multiple batches of requests, due to log > rolling, > > >> size > > >> > > > > > > limitations, > > >> > > > > > > > >> etc, those would be the guarantees I need to be able > to > > >> > > > > reduplicate > > >> > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> client side. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > A single record written by #write and A record set > (set > > of > > >> > > > records) > > >> > > > > > > > > written by #writeRecordSet are atomic - they will not > be > > >> > broken > > >> > > > > down > > >> > > > > > > into > > >> > > > > > > > > entries (batches). With the correct response code, you > > >> would > > >> > be > > >> > > > > able > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > > tell if it is a lost-ack failure or not. However there > > is > > >> a > > >> > > size > > >> > > > > > > > limitation > > >> > > > > > > > > for this - it can't not go beyond 1MB for current > > >> > > implementation. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > What is your expected record size? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Since we can guarantee per-key ordering on the > > client > > >> > > side, > > >> > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > >> guarantee > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > that there is a single writer per-key, just not > per > > >> log. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Do you need fencing guarantee in the case of > network > > >> > > partition > > >> > > > > > > causing > > >> > > > > > > > >> > two-writers? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > So if there was a > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > way to guarantee a single write request as being > > >> written > > >> > > or > > >> > > > > not, > > >> > > > > > > > >> within a > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > certain time frame (since failures should be rare > > >> > anyways, > > >> > > > > this > > >> > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> fine > > >> > > > > > > > >> > if > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > it is expensive), we can then have the client > > >> guarantee > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > ordering > > >> > > > > > > > >> it > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > needs. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > This sounds an 'exact-once' write (regarding > retries) > > >> > > > > requirement > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > me, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > right? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Yes. I'm curious of how this issue is handled by > > >> Manhattan, > > >> > > > since > > >> > > > > > you > > >> > > > > > > > can > > >> > > > > > > > >> imagine a data store that ends up getting multiple > > writes > > >> > for > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > same > > >> > > > > > > > put > > >> > > > > > > > >> / get / etc, would be harder to use, and we are > > basically > > >> > > trying > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > create > > >> > > > > > > > >> a log like that for HBase. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Are you guys replacing HBase WAL? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > In Manhattan case, the request will be first written > to > > DL > > >> > > > streams > > >> > > > > by > > >> > > > > > > > > Manhattan coordinator. The Manhattan replica then will > > >> read > > >> > > from > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > DL > > >> > > > > > > > > streams and apply the change. In the lost-ack case, > the > > MH > > >> > > > > > coordinator > > >> > > > > > > > will > > >> > > > > > > > > just fail the request to client. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > My feeling here is your usage for HBase is a bit > > different > > >> > from > > >> > > > how > > >> > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > use > > >> > > > > > > > > DL in Manhattan. It sounds like you read from a source > > >> (HBase > > >> > > > WAL) > > >> > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > write to DL. But I might be wrong. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't > really > > >> > thought > > >> > > > > > > through - > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch > > >> write > > >> > > > > request, > > >> > > > > > > > where > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the > writer > > >> has > > >> > > > > changed > > >> > > > > > or > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ledger > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch > and > > >> are > > >> > > > > rejected > > >> > > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > epoch > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > has changed. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger > > off > > >> > > after a > > >> > > > > > > failure > > >> > > > > > > > >> > would > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been > written > > >> or > > >> > > would > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> rejected. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > The issue would be how I guarantee the write I > > wrote > > >> to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > server > > >> > > > > > > > was > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > written. Since a network issue could happen on > the > > >> send > > >> > of > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> request, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > or > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > on the receive of the success response, an epoch > > >> > wouldn't > > >> > > > tell > > >> > > > > > me > > >> > > > > > > > if I > > >> > > > > > > > >> > can > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > successfully retry, as it could be successfully > > >> written > > >> > > but > > >> > > > > AWS > > >> > > > > > > > >> dropped > > >> > > > > > > > >> > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > connection for the success response. Since the > > epoch > > >> > would > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > same > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > (same ledger), I could write duplicates. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We are currently proposing adding a transaction > > >> > semantic > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > dl > > >> > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >> get > > >> > > > > > > > >> > rid > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > of the size limitation and the unaware-ness in > > the > > >> > proxy > > >> > > > > > client. > > >> > > > > > > > >> Here > > >> > > > > > > > >> > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > our idea - > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > http://mail-archives.apache.or > > >> g/mod_mbox/incubator- > > >> > > > > > > distributedlog > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > -dev/201609.mbox/%3cCAAC6BxP5Y > > >> yEHwG0ZCF5soh42X=xuYwYm > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > <http://mail-archives.apache. > > org/mod_mbox/incubator- > > >> > > > > > > > >> > distributedlog%0A-dev/201609.mbox/% > > >> > > 3cCAAC6BxP5YyEHwG0ZCF5soh > > >> > > > > > > > 42X=xuYwYm> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > l4nxsybyiofzxpv...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I am not sure if your idea is similar as ours. > > but > > >> > we'd > > >> > > > like > > >> > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > collaborate > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > with the community if anyone has the similar > > idea. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Our use case would be covered by transaction > > support, > > >> > but > > >> > > > I'm > > >> > > > > > > unsure > > >> > > > > > > > >> if > > >> > > > > > > > >> > we > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > would need something that heavy weight for the > > >> > guarantees > > >> > > we > > >> > > > > > need. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Basically, the high level requirement here is > > >> "Support > > >> > > > > > consistent > > >> > > > > > > > >> write > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ordering for single-writer-per-key, > > >> > multi-writer-per-log". > > >> > > > My > > >> > > > > > > hunch > > >> > > > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > that, with some added guarantees to the proxy (if > > it > > >> > isn't > > >> > > > > > already > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > supported), and some custom client code on our > side > > >> for > > >> > > > > removing > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > entries that actually succeed to write to > > >> DistributedLog > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> request > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > that failed, it should be a relatively easy thing > > to > > >> > > > support. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Yup. I think it should not be very difficult to > > >> support. > > >> > > There > > >> > > > > > might > > >> > > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > some changes in the server side. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Let's figure out what will the changes be. Are you > > guys > > >> > > > > interested > > >> > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > >> > contributing? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > Yes, we would be. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> As a note, the one thing that we see as an issue with > > the > > >> > > client > > >> > > > > > side > > >> > > > > > > > >> dedupping is how to bound the range of data that > needs > > >> to be > > >> > > > > looked > > >> > > > > > at > > >> > > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > >> deduplication. As you can imagine, it is pretty easy > to > > >> > bound > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > bottom > > >> > > > > > > > >> of > > >> > > > > > > > >> the range, as that it just regular checkpointing of > the > > >> DSLN > > >> > > > that > > >> > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > >> returned. I'm still not sure if there is any nice way > > to > > >> > time > > >> > > > > bound > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> top > > >> > > > > > > > >> end of the range, especially since the proxy owns > > >> sequence > > >> > > > numbers > > >> > > > > > > > (which > > >> > > > > > > > >> makes sense). I am curious if there is more that can > be > > >> done > > >> > > if > > >> > > > > > > > >> deduplication is on the server side. However the main > > >> minus > > >> > I > > >> > > > see > > >> > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > >> server > > >> > > > > > > > >> side deduplication is that instead of running > > contingent > > >> on > > >> > > > there > > >> > > > > > > being > > >> > > > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > >> failed client request, instead it would have to run > > every > > >> > > time a > > >> > > > > > write > > >> > > > > > > > >> happens. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > For a reliable dedup, we probably need > > >> fence-then-getLastDLSN > > >> > > > > > > operation - > > >> > > > > > > > > so it would guarantee that any non-completed requests > > >> issued > > >> > > > > > (lost-ack > > >> > > > > > > > > requests) before this fence-then-getLastDLSN operation > > >> will > > >> > be > > >> > > > > failed > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > > they will never land at the log. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > the pseudo code would look like below - > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > write(request) onFailure { t => > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > if (t is timeout exception) { > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > DLSN lastDLSN = fenceThenGetLastDLSN() > > >> > > > > > > > > DLSN lastCheckpointedDLSN = ...; > > >> > > > > > > > > // find if the request lands between [lastDLSN, > > >> > > > > > lastCheckpointedDLSN]. > > >> > > > > > > > > // if it exists, the write succeed; otherwise retry. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > } > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > } > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Just realized the idea is same as what Leigh raised in > the > > >> > > previous > > >> > > > > > email > > >> > > > > > > > about 'epoch write'. Let me explain more about this idea > > >> > (Leigh, > > >> > > > feel > > >> > > > > > > free > > >> > > > > > > > to jump in to fill up your idea). > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > - when a log stream is owned, the proxy use the last > > >> > transaction > > >> > > > id > > >> > > > > as > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > epoch > > >> > > > > > > > - when a client connects (handshake with the proxy), it > > will > > >> > get > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > > > epoch > > >> > > > > > > > for the stream. > > >> > > > > > > > - the writes issued by this client will carry the epoch > to > > >> the > > >> > > > proxy. > > >> > > > > > > > - add a new rpc - fenceThenGetLastDLSN - it would force > > the > > >> > proxy > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > bump > > >> > > > > > > > the epoch. > > >> > > > > > > > - if fenceThenGetLastDLSN happened, all the outstanding > > >> writes > > >> > > with > > >> > > > > old > > >> > > > > > > > epoch will be rejected with exceptions (e.g. > EpochFenced). > > >> > > > > > > > - The DLSN returned from fenceThenGetLastDLSN can be > used > > as > > >> > the > > >> > > > > bound > > >> > > > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > deduplications on failures. > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Cameron, does this sound a solution to your use case? > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> Maybe something that could fit a similar need that > > Kafka > > >> > does > > >> > > > (the > > >> > > > > > > last > > >> > > > > > > > >> store value for a particular key in a log), such that > > on > > >> a > > >> > per > > >> > > > key > > >> > > > > > > basis > > >> > > > > > > > >> there could be a sequence number that support > > >> deduplication? > > >> > > > Cost > > >> > > > > > > seems > > >> > > > > > > > >> like it would be high however, and I'm not even sure > if > > >> > > > bookkeeper > > >> > > > > > > > >> supports > > >> > > > > > > > >> it. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> Cheers, > > >> > > > > > > > >> Cameron > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Cameron > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Leigh Stewart > > >> > > > > > > > >> > <lstew...@twitter.com.invalid > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Cameron: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Another thing we've discussed but haven't > really > > >> > thought > > >> > > > > > > through - > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > We might be able to support some kind of epoch > > >> write > > >> > > > > request, > > >> > > > > > > > where > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > epoch is guaranteed to have changed if the > writer > > >> has > > >> > > > > changed > > >> > > > > > or > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ledger > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > was ever fenced off. Writes include an epoch > and > > >> are > > >> > > > > rejected > > >> > > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > epoch > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > has changed. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > With a mechanism like this, fencing the ledger > > off > > >> > > after a > > >> > > > > > > failure > > >> > > > > > > > >> > would > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ensure any pending writes had either been > written > > >> or > > >> > > would > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> rejected. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Sijie Guo < > > >> > > > si...@apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Cameron, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > I think both Leigh and Xi had made a few good > > >> points > > >> > > > about > > >> > > > > > > your > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > question. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > To add one more point to your question - > "but I > > >> am > > >> > not > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code > > handle > > >> > > > > failures. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > If not, where in the code would be the > relevant > > >> > places > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > > > add > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > ability > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > to do this, and would the project be > interested > > >> in a > > >> > > > pull > > >> > > > > > > > >> request?" > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > The current proxy and client logic doesn't do > > >> > > perfectly > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > > > > > >> handling > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > failures (duplicates) - the strategy now is > the > > >> > client > > >> > > > > will > > >> > > > > > > > retry > > >> > > > > > > > >> as > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > best > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > at it can before throwing exceptions to > users. > > >> The > > >> > > code > > >> > > > > you > > >> > > > > > > are > > >> > > > > > > > >> > looking > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > - it is on BKLogSegmentWriter for the proxy > > >> handling > > >> > > > > writes > > >> > > > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > >> it is > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > on > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > DistributedLogClientImpl for the proxy client > > >> > handling > > >> > > > > > > responses > > >> > > > > > > > >> from > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > proxies. Does this help you? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > And also, you are welcome to contribute the > > pull > > >> > > > requests. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > - Sijie > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Cameron > > Hatfield > > >> < > > >> > > > > > > > >> kin...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have a question about the Proxy Client. > > >> > Basically, > > >> > > > for > > >> > > > > > our > > >> > > > > > > > use > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > cases, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > want to guarantee ordering at the key > level, > > >> > > > > irrespective > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ordering > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > of the partition it may be assigned to as a > > >> whole. > > >> > > Due > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > source > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > of > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > data (HBase Replication), we cannot > guarantee > > >> > that a > > >> > > > > > single > > >> > > > > > > > >> > partition > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > will > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > be owned for writes by the same client. > This > > >> means > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > proxy > > >> > > > > > > > >> client > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > works > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > well (since we don't care which proxy owns > > the > > >> > > > partition > > >> > > > > > we > > >> > > > > > > > are > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > writing > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > However, the guarantees we need when > writing > > a > > >> > batch > > >> > > > > > > consists > > >> > > > > > > > >> of: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Definition of a Batch: The set of records > > sent > > >> to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > > writeBatch > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > endpoint > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > on the proxy > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. Batch success: If the client receives a > > >> success > > >> > > > from > > >> > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> proxy, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > then > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that batch is successfully written > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 2. Inter-Batch ordering : Once a batch has > > been > > >> > > > written > > >> > > > > > > > >> > successfully > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > by > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > client, when another batch is written, it > > will > > >> be > > >> > > > > > guaranteed > > >> > > > > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > > >> be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > ordered > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > after the last batch (if it is the same > > >> stream). > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 3. Intra-Batch ordering: Within a batch of > > >> writes, > > >> > > the > > >> > > > > > > records > > >> > > > > > > > >> will > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > committed in order > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 4. Intra-Batch failure ordering: If an > > >> individual > > >> > > > record > > >> > > > > > > fails > > >> > > > > > > > >> to > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > write > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > within a batch, all records after that > record > > >> will > > >> > > not > > >> > > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> written. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 5. Batch Commit: Guarantee that if a batch > > >> > returns a > > >> > > > > > > success, > > >> > > > > > > > it > > >> > > > > > > > >> > will > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > be > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > written > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 6. Read-after-write: Once a batch is > > committed, > > >> > > > within a > > >> > > > > > > > limited > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > time-frame > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > it will be able to be read. This is > required > > in > > >> > the > > >> > > > case > > >> > > > > > of > > >> > > > > > > > >> > failure, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > so > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > that the client can see what actually got > > >> > > committed. I > > >> > > > > > > believe > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > time-frame part could be removed if the > > client > > >> can > > >> > > > send > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> same > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sequence number that was written > previously, > > >> since > > >> > > it > > >> > > > > > would > > >> > > > > > > > then > > >> > > > > > > > >> > fail > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > we would know that a read needs to occur. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > So, my basic question is if this is > currently > > >> > > possible > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > proxy? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > don't believe it gives these guarantees as > it > > >> > stands > > >> > > > > > today, > > >> > > > > > > > but > > >> > > > > > > > >> I > > >> > > > > > > > >> > am > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > not > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 100% of how all of the futures in the code > > >> handle > > >> > > > > > failures. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > If not, where in the code would be the > > relevant > > >> > > places > > >> > > > > to > > >> > > > > > > add > > >> > > > > > > > >> the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ability > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > to do this, and would the project be > > interested > > >> > in a > > >> > > > > pull > > >> > > > > > > > >> request? > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Cameron > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
