[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11349?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15352747#comment-15352747
]
Sylvain Lebresne commented on CASSANDRA-11349:
----------------------------------------------
Had a look here, and I'm more comfortable with sticking to [~blambov] approach.
For 2.1 and 2.2, we're now in "only critical bug fixes" and running things
through RTL definitively changes things too much for my comfort. That imply I'm
fine not fixing every possible problems if that gets us too far (especially
since it's properly fixed in 3.0 and not that many people seems to have
reported this). And Branimir's approach seems to be making a good enough impact
in practice.
So [~blambov], could you rebase your patch for 2.1 and 2.2 and run CI. After
which, if tests are good, I'm +1 committing.
> MerkleTree mismatch when multiple range tombstones exists for the same
> partition and interval
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CASSANDRA-11349
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CASSANDRA-11349
> Project: Cassandra
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Fabien Rousseau
> Assignee: Stefan Podkowinski
> Labels: repair
> Fix For: 2.1.x, 2.2.x
>
> Attachments: 11349-2.1-v2.patch, 11349-2.1-v3.patch,
> 11349-2.1-v4.patch, 11349-2.1.patch, 11349-2.2-v4.patch
>
>
> We observed that repair, for some of our clusters, streamed a lot of data and
> many partitions were "out of sync".
> Moreover, the read repair mismatch ratio is around 3% on those clusters,
> which is really high.
> After investigation, it appears that, if two range tombstones exists for a
> partition for the same range/interval, they're both included in the merkle
> tree computation.
> But, if for some reason, on another node, the two range tombstones were
> already compacted into a single range tombstone, this will result in a merkle
> tree difference.
> Currently, this is clearly bad because MerkleTree differences are dependent
> on compactions (and if a partition is deleted and created multiple times, the
> only way to ensure that repair "works correctly"/"don't overstream data" is
> to major compact before each repair... which is not really feasible).
> Below is a list of steps allowing to easily reproduce this case:
> {noformat}
> ccm create test -v 2.1.13 -n 2 -s
> ccm node1 cqlsh
> CREATE KEYSPACE test_rt WITH replication = {'class': 'SimpleStrategy',
> 'replication_factor': 2};
> USE test_rt;
> CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS table1 (
> c1 text,
> c2 text,
> c3 float,
> c4 float,
> PRIMARY KEY ((c1), c2)
> );
> INSERT INTO table1 (c1, c2, c3, c4) VALUES ( 'a', 'b', 1, 2);
> DELETE FROM table1 WHERE c1 = 'a' AND c2 = 'b';
> ctrl ^d
> # now flush only one of the two nodes
> ccm node1 flush
> ccm node1 cqlsh
> USE test_rt;
> INSERT INTO table1 (c1, c2, c3, c4) VALUES ( 'a', 'b', 1, 3);
> DELETE FROM table1 WHERE c1 = 'a' AND c2 = 'b';
> ctrl ^d
> ccm node1 repair
> # now grep the log and observe that there was some inconstencies detected
> between nodes (while it shouldn't have detected any)
> ccm node1 showlog | grep "out of sync"
> {noformat}
> Consequences of this are a costly repair, accumulating many small SSTables
> (up to thousands for a rather short period of time when using VNodes, the
> time for compaction to absorb those small files), but also an increased size
> on disk.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
