[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15071175#comment-15071175
]
Brian Hess commented on CASSANDRA-8844:
----------------------------------------
I certainly think that Cassandra should not transparently "upgrade" or alter
the requested consistency level of the write from the application. Doing so is
"surprise behavior" and I think should be avoided, especially since the client
requested a specific consistency level (which we'd be then ignoring and doing
something different). So, I'm -1 on that approach (do we do anything like that
anywhere else in the system?).
I'm also -1 on the choice that the resiliency of the CDC log is only up to the
original consistency level of the write. CDC is a layer that should be
additive to a table without needing to alter the application that is writing to
that table. The semantics of RF and CL for the CDC log itself should be
governed by separate settings, though having the RF be equivalent to the base
table and the CL equivalent to the original write make sense - however, the
semantics should allow for the CDC log to achieve the full RF just as the base
table does (e.g., via repair, etc).
Essentially, I think I disagree with this Assumption in the design doc:
bq. Don’t have to worry about repair - guarantee is CL # of nodes have the
update and it will be consumed by client within ms. at-least-once semantics and
time horizon mean we don’t have to worry about repairing CDC data.
I think the second goal/requirement you laid out above (a record of all
mutations seen by the cluster) is an important part of the purpose of this
ticket (and the original intent I had when [~tupshin] and I discussed this).
Many uses stem from this interpretation of CDC logs, especially when the goal
is for consumers other than other Cassandra clusters are processing the CDC
log, but in some cases even Cassandra clusters would need to see every
mutation, not just the final delta (e.g., Cassandra triggers on the destination
system that provide for side-effects to mutations).
The issue of capturing every mutation in a durable/distributed/resilient way is
intertwined with my belief that we should not have to process all RF copies of
the CDC log. Needing to process all RF copies of the CDC log puts a processing
burden on the consuming system that is at least undesirable (and at most
prohibitive). There does not appear to be an approach to avoiding processing
all RF copies to ensure at-least-once-delivery (but not
at-least-RF-deliveries). Moreover, the resiliency approach depends on
requiring the consumer to process all RF copies of the logs in order to ensure
processing every mutation. In addition, processing all RF copies of the CDC
log will incur a large processing overhead (200% extra in the RF=3 case, for
example). So, I'm also -1 on needing to process all the CDC logs on all
replicas.
> Change Data Capture (CDC)
> -------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-8844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-8844
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Coordination, Local Write-Read Paths
> Reporter: Tupshin Harper
> Assignee: Joshua McKenzie
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 3.x
>
>
> "In databases, change data capture (CDC) is a set of software design patterns
> used to determine (and track) the data that has changed so that action can be
> taken using the changed data. Also, Change data capture (CDC) is an approach
> to data integration that is based on the identification, capture and delivery
> of the changes made to enterprise data sources."
> -Wikipedia
> As Cassandra is increasingly being used as the Source of Record (SoR) for
> mission critical data in large enterprises, it is increasingly being called
> upon to act as the central hub of traffic and data flow to other systems. In
> order to try to address the general need, we (cc [~brianmhess]), propose
> implementing a simple data logging mechanism to enable per-table CDC patterns.
> h2. The goals:
> # Use CQL as the primary ingestion mechanism, in order to leverage its
> Consistency Level semantics, and in order to treat it as the single
> reliable/durable SoR for the data.
> # To provide a mechanism for implementing good and reliable
> (deliver-at-least-once with possible mechanisms for deliver-exactly-once )
> continuous semi-realtime feeds of mutations going into a Cassandra cluster.
> # To eliminate the developmental and operational burden of users so that they
> don't have to do dual writes to other systems.
> # For users that are currently doing batch export from a Cassandra system,
> give them the opportunity to make that realtime with a minimum of coding.
> h2. The mechanism:
> We propose a durable logging mechanism that functions similar to a commitlog,
> with the following nuances:
> - Takes place on every node, not just the coordinator, so RF number of copies
> are logged.
> - Separate log per table.
> - Per-table configuration. Only tables that are specified as CDC_LOG would do
> any logging.
> - Per DC. We are trying to keep the complexity to a minimum to make this an
> easy enhancement, but most likely use cases would prefer to only implement
> CDC logging in one (or a subset) of the DCs that are being replicated to
> - In the critical path of ConsistencyLevel acknowledgment. Just as with the
> commitlog, failure to write to the CDC log should fail that node's write. If
> that means the requested consistency level was not met, then clients *should*
> experience UnavailableExceptions.
> - Be written in a Row-centric manner such that it is easy for consumers to
> reconstitute rows atomically.
> - Written in a simple format designed to be consumed *directly* by daemons
> written in non JVM languages
> h2. Nice-to-haves
> I strongly suspect that the following features will be asked for, but I also
> believe that they can be deferred for a subsequent release, and to guage
> actual interest.
> - Multiple logs per table. This would make it easy to have multiple
> "subscribers" to a single table's changes. A workaround would be to create a
> forking daemon listener, but that's not a great answer.
> - Log filtering. Being able to apply filters, including UDF-based filters
> would make Casandra a much more versatile feeder into other systems, and
> again, reduce complexity that would otherwise need to be built into the
> daemons.
> h2. Format and Consumption
> - Cassandra would only write to the CDC log, and never delete from it.
> - Cleaning up consumed logfiles would be the client daemon's responibility
> - Logfile size should probably be configurable.
> - Logfiles should be named with a predictable naming schema, making it
> triivial to process them in order.
> - Daemons should be able to checkpoint their work, and resume from where they
> left off. This means they would have to leave some file artifact in the CDC
> log's directory.
> - A sophisticated daemon should be able to be written that could
> -- Catch up, in written-order, even when it is multiple logfiles behind in
> processing
> -- Be able to continuously "tail" the most recent logfile and get
> low-latency(ms?) access to the data as it is written.
> h2. Alternate approach
> In order to make consuming a change log easy and efficient to do with low
> latency, the following could supplement the approach outlined above
> - Instead of writing to a logfile, by default, Cassandra could expose a
> socket for a daemon to connect to, and from which it could pull each row.
> - Cassandra would have a limited buffer for storing rows, should the listener
> become backlogged, but it would immediately spill to disk in that case, never
> incurring large in-memory costs.
> h2. Additional consumption possibility
> With all of the above, still relevant:
> - instead (or in addition to) using the other logging mechanisms, use CQL
> transport itself as a logger.
> - Extend the CQL protoocol slightly so that rows of data can be return to a
> listener that didn't explicit make a query, but instead registered itself
> with Cassandra as a listener for a particular event type, and in this case,
> the event type would be anything that would otherwise go to a CDC log.
> - If there is no listener for the event type associated with that log, or if
> that listener gets backlogged, the rows will again spill to the persistent
> storage.
> h2. Possible Syntax
> {code:sql}
> CREATE TABLE ... WITH CDC LOG
> {code}
> Pros: No syntax extesions
> Cons: doesn't make it easy to capture the various permutations (i'm happy to
> be proven wrong) of per-dc logging. also, the hypothetical multiple logs per
> table would break this
> {code:sql}
> CREATE CDC_LOG mylog ON mytable WHERE MyUdf(mycol1, mycol2) = 5 with
> DCs={'dc1','dc3'}
> {code}
> Pros: Expressive and allows for easy DDL management of all aspects of CDC
> Cons: Syntax additions. Added complexity, partly for features that might not
> be implemented
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
