cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Sylvain Lebresne (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (CASSANDRA-2643) read repair/reconciliation breaks slice based iteration at QUORUM
Date Fri, 13 May 2011 15:01:48 GMT


Sylvain Lebresne updated CASSANDRA-2643:


You are right, there is a problem here.

I'll just note that you example is not a good example for QUORUM, because the fact that only
C "has [10,20] of column deletions" means this situation did not happen with QUORUM writes
(and the consistency guarantee for QUORUM involves read and write being at QUORUM).

However, this still show that there is a problem for ONE (writes) + ALL (reads). And it's
not hard to come up with an example for QUORUM (reads and writes). Just consider the case
where you insert like 10 columns and then delete the 3 first ones but with each time 1 node
down, but never the same one.

To make this concrete, I'm attaching a script that produce this "short read" effect. Disclaimer:
it uses and require the patch I've attached to CASSANDRA-2646
(to be able to do a bounded slice with the cli).

The simplest way to fix that I see (which doesn't imply simple per se) would be to requests
more columns if we're short after a resolve on the coordinator.  Yes in theory it means we
may have to do a unknown number of such re-request, but in practice I strongly doubt this
will be a problem. The problem has very little chance to happen in real life to start with
(for QUORUM, my script is simple but implements something that has very very little change
to actually happen in real life -- especially with HH, read repair and repair), but the chances
that if that happens we need more that 1 re-request are ridiculously small.

> read repair/reconciliation breaks slice based iteration at QUORUM
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-2643
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 0.7.5
>            Reporter: Peter Schuller
>            Priority: Critical
>         Attachments:,
> In short, I believe iterating over columns is impossible to do reliably with QUORUM due
to the way reconciliation works.
> The problem is that the SliceQueryFilter is executing locally when reading on a node,
but no attempts seem to be made to consider limits when doing reconciliation and/or read-repair
(RowRepairResolver.resolveSuperset() and ColumnFamily.resolve()).
> If a node slices and comes up with 100 columns, and another node slices and comes up
with 100 columns, some of which are unique to each side, reconciliation results in > 100
columns in the result set. In this case the effect is limited to "client gets more than asked
for", but the columns still accurately represent the range. This is easily triggered by my
> In addition to the client receiving "too many" columns, I believe some of them will not
be satisfying the QUORUM consistency level for the same reasons as with deletions (see discussion
> Now, there *should* be a problem for tombstones as well, but it's more subtle. Suppose
A has:
>   1
>   2
>   3
>   4
>   5
>   6
> and B has:
>   1
>   del 2
>   del 3
>   del 4
>   5
>   6 
> If you now slice 1-6 with count=3 the tombstones from B will reconcile with those from
A - fine. So you end up getting 1,5,6 back. This made it a bit difficult to trigger in a test
case until I realized what was going on. At first I was "hoping" to see a "short" iteration
result, which would mean that the process of iterating until you get a short result will cause
spurious "end of columns" and thus make it impossible to iterate correctly.
> So; due to 5-6 existing (and if they didn't, you legitimately reached end-of-columns)
we do indeed get a result of size 3 which contains 1,5 and 6. However, only node B would have
contributed columns 5 and 6; so there is actually no QUORUM consistency on the co-ordinating
node with respect to these columns. If node A and C also had 5 and 6, they would not have
been considered.
> Am I wrong?
> In any case; using script I'm about to attach, you can trigger the over-delivery case
very easily:
> (0) disable hinted hand-off to avoid that interacting with the test
> (1) start three nodes
> (2) create ks 'test' with rf=3 and cf 'slicetest'
> (3) ./ hostname_of_node_C insert # let it run for a few seconds, then ctrl-c
> (4) stop node A
> (5) ./ hostname_of_node_C insert # let it run for a few seconds, then ctrl-c
> (6) start node A, wait for B and C to consider it up
> (7) ./ hostname_of_node_A slice # make A co-ordinator though it doesn't necessarily
> You can also pass 'delete' (random deletion of 50% of contents) or 'deleterange' (delete
all in [0.2,0.8]) to slicetest, but you don't trigger a short read by doing that (see discussion

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message