[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7066?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14522888#comment-14522888 ]
Stefania edited comment on CASSANDRA-7066 at 5/1/15 7:56 AM: ------------------------------------------------------------- I am having doubts on whether we should eliminate temporary files entirely. There is a benefit in knowing if a file is ready for use just by looking at its file name, rather than relying on a transaction log file to find out. I am thinking of cases where the users might move files around, like bulk upload, or standalone operations. I feel a bit uneasy relying on users to also copy the transaction log files. So I would propose still keeping the tmp files, even though they are tracked by the transaction logs. Any thoughts? was (Author: stefania): I am having doubts on whether we should eliminate temporary files entirely. There is a benefit in knowing if a file is ready for use just by looking at its file name, rather than relying on a transaction log file to find out. I am thinking of cases where the users might move files around, like bulk upload, or standalone operations. I feel a bit uneasy relying on users to also coy the transaction log files. So I would propose still keeping the tmp files, even though they are tracked by the transaction logs. Any thoughts? > Simplify (and unify) cleanup of compaction leftovers > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: CASSANDRA-7066 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-7066 > Project: Cassandra > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Core > Reporter: Benedict > Assignee: Stefania > Priority: Minor > Labels: compaction > Fix For: 3.x > > > Currently we manage a list of in-progress compactions in a system table, > which we use to cleanup incomplete compactions when we're done. The problem > with this is that 1) it's a bit clunky (and leaves us in positions where we > can unnecessarily cleanup completed files, or conversely not cleanup files > that have been superceded); and 2) it's only used for a regular compaction - > no other compaction types are guarded in the same way, so can result in > duplication if we fail before deleting the replacements. > I'd like to see each sstable store in its metadata its direct ancestors, and > on startup we simply delete any sstables that occur in the union of all > ancestor sets. This way as soon as we finish writing we're capable of > cleaning up any leftovers, so we never get duplication. It's also much easier > to reason about. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.3.4#6332)