[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13678730#comment-13678730
]
Ted Yu commented on HBASE-8701:
-------------------------------
I am in favor of associating seqid along with KeyValue.
bq. Replaying though, memstore would have to consider the seqid' when sorting.
Looks like a new type of KVComparator should be created that considers seqid's,
depending on how seqid is stored.
Storing seqid along with KeyValue implies bumping minor version of HFile. If we
use the upcoming call tag facility, minor version of HFile needs to be bumped
only once.
bq. the replay memstore would be different to our current memstore
+1. This is the replay-memstore (RMS) mentioned above.
For performance consideration, we need to balance the frequency of flushing
w.r.t. normal memstore and RMS. Looks like RMS should be flushed less
frequently (compared to flushing of normal memstore) when global heap pressure
gets to some threshold. Meaning, we may need to throttle the concurrent writes
coming into normal memstore.
> distributedLogReplay need to apply wal edits in the receiving order of those
> edits
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8701
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8701
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: MTTR
> Reporter: Jeffrey Zhong
> Assignee: Jeffrey Zhong
> Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.95.2
>
>
> This issue happens in distributedLogReplay mode when recovering multiple puts
> of the same key + version(timestamp). After replay, the value is
> nondeterministic of the key
> h5. The original concern situation raised from [~eclark]:
> For all edits the rowkey is the same.
> There's a log with: [ A (ts = 0), B (ts = 0) ]
> Replay the first half of the log.
> A user puts in C (ts = 0)
> Memstore has to flush
> A new Hfile will be created with [ C, A ] and MaxSequenceId = C's seqid.
> Replay the rest of the Log.
> Flush
> The issue will happen in similar situation like Put(key, t=T) in WAL1 and
> Put(key,t=T) in WAL2
> h5. Below is the option I'd like to use:
> a) During replay, we pass wal file name hash in each replay batch and
> original wal sequence id of each edit to the receiving RS
> b) Once a wal is recovered, playing RS send a signal to the receiving RS so
> the receiving RS can flush
> c) In receiving RS, different WAL file of a region sends edits to different
> memstores.(We can visualize this in high level as sending changes to a new
> region object with name(origin region name + wal name hash) and use the
> original sequence Ids.)
> d) writes from normal traffic(allow writes during recovery) are put in normal
> memstores as of today and flush normally with new sequenceIds.
> h5. The other alternative options are listed below for references:
> Option one
> a) disallow writes during recovery
> b) during replay, we pass original wal sequence ids
> c) hold flush till all wals of a recovering region are replayed. Memstore
> should hold because we only recover unflushed wal edits. For edits with same
> key + version, whichever with larger sequence Id wins.
> Option two
> a) During replay, we pass original wal sequence ids
> b) for each wal edit, we store each edit's original sequence id along with
> its key.
> c) during scanning, we use the original sequence id if it's present otherwise
> its store file sequence Id
> d) compaction can just leave put with max sequence id
> Please let me know if you have better ideas.
--
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
