Thank you very much for your explanation.

Streaming happens on the token range level, not the SSTable level, right? So, 
when running an incremental repair before the full repair, the problem that 
“some unrepaired SSTables are being marked as repaired on one node but not on 
another” should not exist any longer. Now this data should be marked as 
repaired on all nodes.

Thus, when repairing the SSTables that are marked as repaired, this data should 
be included on all nodes when calculating the Merkle trees and no overstreaming 
should happen.

Of course, this means that running an incremental repair *first* after marking 
SSTables as repaired and only running the full repair *after* that is critical. 
I have to admit that previously I wasn’t fully aware of how critical this step 

> Am 07.02.2024 um 20:22 schrieb Bowen Song via user 
> <>:
> Unfortunately repair doesn't compare each partition individually. Instead, it 
> groups multiple partitions together and calculate a hash of them, stores the 
> hash in a leaf of a merkle tree, and then compares the merkle trees between 
> replicas during a repair session. If any one of the partitions covered by a 
> leaf is inconsistent between replicas, the hash values in these leaves will 
> be different, and all partitions covered by the same leaf will need to be 
> streamed in full.
> Knowing that, and also know that your approach can create a lots of 
> inconsistencies in the repaired SSTables because some unrepaired SSTables are 
> being marked as repaired on one node but not on another, you would then 
> understand why over-streaming can happen. The over-streaming is only 
> problematic for the repaired SSTables, because they are much bigger than the 
> unrepaired.
> On 07/02/2024 17:00, Sebastian Marsching wrote:
>>> Caution, using the method you described, the amount of data streamed at the 
>>> end with the full repair is not the amount of data written between stopping 
>>> the first node and the last node, but depends on the table size, the number 
>>> of partitions written, their distribution in the ring and the 
>>> 'repair_session_space' value. If the table is large, the writes touch a 
>>> large number of partitions scattered across the token ring, and the value 
>>> of 'repair_session_space' is small, you may end up with a very expensive 
>>> over-streaming.
>> Thanks for the warning. In our case it worked well (obviously we tested it 
>> on a test cluster before applying it on the production clusters), but it is 
>> good to know that this might not always be the case.
>> Maybe I misunderstand how full and incremental repairs work in C* 4.x. I 
>> would appreciate if you could clarify this for me.
>> So far, I assumed that a full repair on a cluster that is also using 
>> incremental repair pretty much works like on a cluster that is not using 
>> incremental repair at all, the only difference being that the set of 
>> repaired und unrepaired data is repaired separately, so the Merkle trees 
>> that are calculated for repaired and unrepaired data are completely separate.
>> I also assumed that incremental repair only looks at unrepaired data, which 
>> is why it is so fast.
>> Is either of these two assumptions wrong?
>> If not, I do not quite understand how a lot of overstreaming might happen, 
>> as long as (I forgot to mention this step in my original e-mail) I run an 
>> incremental repair directly after restarting the nodes and marking all data 
>> as repaired.
>> I understand that significant overstreaming might happen during this first 
>> repair (in the worst case streaming all the unrepaired data that a node 
>> stores), but due to the short amount of time between starting to mark data 
>> as repaired and running the incremental repair, the whole set of unrepaired 
>> data should be rather small, so this overstreaming should not cause any 
>> issues.
>> From this point on, the unrepaired data on the different nodes should be in 
>> sync and discrepancies in the repaired data during the full repair should 
>> not be bigger than they had been if I had run a full repair without marking 
>> an data as repaired.
>> I would really appreciate if you could point out the hole in this reasoning. 
>> Maybe I have a fundamentally wrong understanding of the repair process, and 
>> if I do I would like to correct this.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to