cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-14145) Detecting data resurrection during read
Date Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:15:02 GMT


ASF GitHub Bot commented on CASSANDRA-14145:

Github user beobal commented on the issue:
    Thanks @jrwest, pushed a followup commit and replied to most comments inline.
    > Two of the new tests are failing for me.
    Yep, some of the refactoring in CASSANDRA-14698 broke repaired tracking where the read
repair strategy for the table is `NONE`, which is the case in these tests. CASSANDRA-14755
has a fix for this and is patch available.
    >  Is there a build with this branch showing how the dtests fare w/ tracking enabled
for all of them?
    The dtest runs on CASSANDRA-14145 were all done with this branch, so they have tracking
enabled (also the CI runs linked from CASSANDRA-14755).

>  Detecting data resurrection during read
> ----------------------------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-14145
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: sankalp kohli
>            Assignee: Sam Tunnicliffe
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: pull-request-available
>             Fix For: 4.0
> We have seen several bugs in which deleted data gets resurrected. We should try to see
if we can detect this on the read path and possibly fix it. Here are a few examples which
brought back data
> A replica lost an sstable on startup which caused one replica to lose the tombstone and
not the data. This tombstone was past gc grace which means this could resurrect data. We can
detect such invalid states by looking at other replicas. 
> If we are running incremental repair, Cassandra will keep repaired and non-repaired data
separate. Every-time incremental repair will run, it will move the data from non-repaired
to repaired. Repaired data across all replicas should be 100% consistent. 
> Here is an example of how we can detect and mitigate the issue in most cases. 
> Say we have 3 machines, A,B and C. All these machines will have data split b/w repaired
and non-repaired. 
> 1. Machine A due to some bug bring backs data D. This data D is in repaired dataset.
All other replicas will have data D and tombstone T 
> 2. Read for data D comes from application which involve replicas A and B. The data being
read involves data which is in repaired state.  A will respond back to co-ordinator with data
D and B will send nothing as tombstone is past gc grace. This will cause digest mismatch.

> 3. This patch will only kick in when there is a digest mismatch. Co-ordinator will ask
both replicas to send back all data like we do today but with this patch, replicas will respond
back what data it is returning is coming from repaired vs non-repaired. If data coming from
repaired does not match, we know there is a something wrong!! At this time, co-ordinator cannot
determine if replica A has resurrected some data or replica B has lost some data. We can still
log error in the logs saying we hit an invalid state.
> 4. Besides the log, we can take this further and even correct the response to the query.
After logging an invalid state, we can ask replica A and B (and also C if alive) to send back
all data for this including gcable tombstones. If any machine returns a tombstone which is
after this data, we know we cannot return this data. This way we can avoid returning data
which has been deleted. 
> Some Challenges with this 
> 1. When data will be moved from non-repaired to repaired, there could be a race here.
We can look at which incremental repairs have promoted things on which replica to avoid false
> 2. If the third replica is down and live replica does not have any tombstone, we wont
be able to break the tie in deciding whether data was actually deleted or resurrected. 
> 3. If the read is for latest data only, we wont be able to detect it as the read will
be served from non-repaired data. 
> 4. If the replica where we lose a tombstone is the last replica to compact the tombstone,
we wont be able to decide if data is coming back or rest of the replicas has lost that data.
But we will still detect something is wrong. 
> 5. We wont affect 99.9% of the read queries as we only do extra work during digest mismatch.
> 6. CL.ONE reads will not be able to detect this. 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message